Category Archives: Coming Soon

Only 13% of 2017 movies are original vehicles

Posted on by
Reply

Fandango, the American movie ticket company, recently polled its users to determine the 30 most anticipated films of 2017.

As usual, Hollywood does not disappoint.

There are few surprises here; the vast majority are instalments in comic book franchises or other sequels.

When I say Hollywood doesn’t disappoint what I mean is that they show the usual trepidation to try something, anything, new.

Without further ado, here are the titles, sorted by release date:

January 20: XXX: The Return of Xander Cage
February 10: The Lego Batman Movie
February 10: John Wick: Chapter Two
February 10: Fifty Shades Darker
February 17: The Great Wall (Matt Damon, the Great Wall of China and monsers)
March 3: Logan (Wolverine)
March 10: T2: Trainspotting
March 10: Kong: Skull Island (from the producers of Godzilla)
March 17: Beauty and the Beast
April 14: The Fate of the Furious
May 5: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
May 12: Snatched (Amy Schumer goes on vacation)
May 19: Alien: Covenant
May 26: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
May 26: Baywatch (from TV)
June 2: Wonder Woman
June 9: The Mummy (reboot)
June 16: Cars 3
June 23: Transformers: The Last Knight
June 30: Despicable Me 3
July 2: Spider-Man: Homecoming
July 21: Dunkirk (directed by Christopher Nolan)
July 28: The Dark Tower (by Stephen King)
July 14: War for the Planet of the Apes
October 6: Blade Runner 2049
November 3: Thor: Ragnarok
November 17: Justice League
December 15: Star Wars: Episode VIII
December 22: Pitch Perfect 3
December 22: Jumanji (sequel)

I believe only four of those 30 films are original vehicles. In other words, roughly seven out of eight movies are remakes, reboots, sequels or franchise instalments.

My take: The only films on this list I might see are Blade Runner 2049 (this sequel is directed by Denis Villeneuve and stars Ryan Gosling, both Canadians), T2: Trainspotting (just because) and maybe Kong (if it’s campy enough). By the way, tomorrow is National Screenwriters Day!

Bob Hawks: don’t make a film unless you have to

Posted on by
Reply

No Film School has a succinct review of ‘Film Hawk’ a new documentary on independent film consultant and producer Bob Hawks.

Hawks discovered Kevin Smith‘s Clerks and produced Chasing Amy.

WIth a nod to the teams all across Canada frantically finishing up their micro-budget projects, here are some of the highlights, in Bob’s words:

Don’t make a film unless you have to.

“The world is cluttered with so many films that have no reason to exist. What I’m saying is, if you don’t have a story that you have to tell, if you don’t have that passion, don’t waste our time. You don’t have to be serious or have something heavy to say. You just have to care about it.”

Treat collaboration as a privilege.

“If you don’t let people in, if you don’t hold them close, you’re hurting yourself. It takes some people many, many years of effort to learn that isolation and unhappiness are your own creation.”

Use your whole life’s experiences to make your films.

“I’ve been working in film for over three decades, but I didn’t start doing that until I was in my forties! I’d already had a full life as a techie off-Broadway, way back in the ’60s, before I even thought about film. Then I was a stage manager. I learned about dramaturgy, storytelling, I added that to my own life experience… and that’s what I brought to filmmaking. You have something in theater that film doesn’t have: four-to-six weeks of rehearsal where you hone the script. So one thing I try to do as a consultant/producer is to help filmmakers develop their narrative.”

Stay local and be authentic.

“But don’t misunderstand me. Your honesty doesn’t have to be geographic. It can be internal. Just remember: a narrative can be modest, it doesn’t have to set the world on fire, but it needs to be authentic. Unfiltered.”

Prepare for rejection.

“First-time filmmakers need to prepare for rejection. Too many of the beginners I meet with may have great potential, but their attitude is wrong. They think, ‘Oh, I’ve got a Sundance film. They’re gonna love it.’ Or, ‘My film is perfect for South By Southwest.’ They assume they’re gonna get in, and when they don’t, they’re crushed. Immobilized. That’s not good for their future. You’re better off assuming that you might not get into anything. Then if you do get into something it’s ‘Wow, how great.'”

Re-define success.

“If you’re in this for money, forget it. I have always said and will always say, ‘If you’re in independent film to make a killing, you’re nuts.’ Success in indie film is breaking even. Or, even better, it’s making something that helps you find other work. How do you measure success? It’s the satisfaction of accomplishment, of making something you’re proud of. Of making something that moves others, that makes them laugh and cry. Or ask searching questions. For me, success includes people you don’t even know coming up to say ‘Thank you.'”

My take: words of wisdom. Particularly that first gem, Don’t make a film unless you have to.

Facebook announces video content plans

Posted on by
Reply

As reported by Peter Kafka on Recode last week:

“Facebook is starting to talk to TV studios and other video producers about licensing shows, with the hope of boosting the social network’s video efforts. The talks, which include discussions for scripted shows, game shows and sports, are being led by Ricky Van Veen, the College Humor co-founder who joined the company earlier this year.”

Van Veen says,

“Earlier this year, we started rolling out the Video tab, a dedicated place for video on Facebook. Our goal is to kickstart an ecosystem of partner content for the tab, so we’re exploring funding some seed video content, including original and licensed scripted, unscripted, and sports content, that takes advantage of mobile and the social interaction unique to Facebook. Our goal is to show people what is possible on the platform and learn as we continue to work with video partners around the world.”

Facebook is looking more and more like a media company, rather than a tech company. Mathew Ingram of Fortune says:

“Yes, Facebook is a platform, and yes, it is powered by technology. But it is also a hugely powerful entity that controls the distribution of media in a way no other company ever has. And now it is funding and developing its own content. That sounds like a media company to me.”

Howard Homonoff in Forbes concurs, and adds insight into Facebook’s advertising revenue:

“Facebook has a nice little business in the media pillar of advertising. There are now 4 million advertisers on Facebook, and it has grown this number by 50% in the last year. Total ad revenue has grown nearly 50% as well in that period, from $3.4 billion in the first half of 2015 to $5.7 billion in the first half of 2016. In combination with Google, Facebook takes 85% of every new dollar spent on digital advertising. Facebook is not simply in the media advertising business but has become almost literally indispensable for many marketers – for better or worse.”

My take: I think it’s all a question of eyeballs. With Alexa reporting the top three websites are Google, Youtube and Facebook, I’d be very afraid if I owned a traditional media company. Streaming is over 70% of nighttime bandwidth; OTT is where the eyeballs are going. Facebook sees this trend and wants to be part of it.

Interactive Cinema: CtrlMovie introduces CtrlEdit

Posted on by
1

Does interactivity mesh well with cinema?

Canada has a historical connection to interactive movies: the first one screened at Expo 67, at the Czechoslovakia pavillion. And yet, no matter what path the audience chose, the ending was always the same.

On CMF Trends, Benjamin Hoguet explores CtrlEdit, a new tool for producing interactive movies, from a Swiss company called CtrlMovie.

CtrlMovie allows filmmakers to add:

  1. Buttons during playback to allow the user to influence the story
  2. Dynamic Jump Actions to flexibly jump between segments – at an exact timecode, in a time frame or triggered by user actions
  3. Swipe Mode to allow users to look around in the film by panning the image with swipe gestures
  4. Animated Masks to make objects in the film tappable
  5. Variables to store user decisions, and retrieve them later for a delayed effect on the story
  6. Expressions to evaluate the former actions of the user and to influence the storyline using short java scripts
  7. Separate Multiple Audio Tracks, independent from the video segments and jump actions
  8. Dynamic Overlays to display browser windows and other interactive elements on top of the movie during playback
  9. Subtitles easily to support a wider audience.

Hoguet quotes co-founder Baptiste Planche:

“CtrlEdit is used once all video segments have been edited to incorporate them into an interactive whole. The solution costs nothing to purchase if we are able to set up a revenue sharing system with the producer. It goes without saying that the model is adaptable. For example, if the final project is not profitable, we can set a price for the software license. In all cases, we are very open to encouraging creators to make maximum use of our tool. The only aspect to which we pay attention is compliance with a certain level of quality regardless of the project. At present, we are receiving a lot of requests from creators and producers and some ten or so projects are underway—including two or three at an advanced stage.”

My take: Perhaps CtrlMovie is the middle ground between the almost-full interactivity of video games and the total-cut-scene experience of Hardcore Henry. And yet, I’m not convinced that the audience needs to be ‘in’ the movie; I think it might be engaging enough just to ‘direct’ the story. Third person, not first person. More like Run Lola Run.

Bot storytellers coming soon.

Posted on by
Reply

Benjamin Hoguet on CMF Trends wonders ‘How can chatbots be used to tell stories?‘

Chatbots, or bots, give the impression of a personalized online experience. Interacting with a bot replicates a real world one-on-one exchange, depending on the quality of the AI programming. Just ask Siri, the most famous bot, “How many Apple Store geniuses does it take to screw in a lightbulb?’ or ‘Is Santa real?’ or ‘Tell me a story.”

According to Hoguet:

“It’s the democratization of chatbots that is revolutionary because today anyone can create his or her own chatbot and upload it to a Facebook page, for example.”

He recommends two tools, ChatFuel or PullString.

“‘Narrative chatbots’ are only just beginning to appear. A lot of them set themselves apart only by their capacity to show us what not to do, but that’s the advantage of pioneering projects: to help develop codes and a grammar for those who will follow in their footsteps. Conversing with fictional characters is today’s predominant use of narrative bots.”

Hoguet envisions “the eventual arrival of bot stores. Just like app stores, they will definitely contribute to elevating chatbots to the level of full-fledged distribution platforms.”

My take: this is worth noticing because the top four messaging apps (WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, WeChat, and Viber) have surpassed the top four social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram) in monthly users, according to Business Insider UK. For instance, imagine if Tom Thomson’s tweets were a (messenger) dialogue rather than a (Twitter) broadcast.

Netflix raises $1 Billion for new content

Posted on by
Reply

Further to my post last week, Variety reports that Netflix is raising one billion dollars to finance its new content.

“Netflix said it is raising $1 billion through a new debt offering, bringing its long-term debt load to more than $3 billion. The offering was upsized from an aggregate principal amount of $800 million originally announced Monday morning.”

It’s a good thing subscribers seem to prefer its original content. AllFlicks claims:

“Netflix user ratings show that Netflix’s subscriber base prefers Netflix’s original content to its syndicated content. Netflix originals sport an average rating of 3.85 stars out of five; all other content averages 3.47 stars. That means that user ratings for Netflix originals are 11% higher, on average, than user ratings for syndicated content. Netflix does best in the documentaries category, where users rate non-original content, on average, at 3.54. Netflix’s documentaries average 4.07 stars, a pretty impressive showing. Netflix’s TV shows do the worst, but still edge their other TV show content by 5.7%.”

Polygon reports that CEO Ted Sarandos says:

“The company wants to move to having about 50 percent of its catalog being original content… but according to recent reports, Netflix’s library has actually shrunk by 50 percent in the past four years.”

Gizmodo corroborates:

“Netflix’s content library isn’t just getting smaller, it’s also increasingly losing its best movies. The Streaming Observer did some analysis, and found that only 31 movies from the IMDb Top 250 are currently available on Netflix…. Even worse than the paltry selection of movies, it’s noteworthy that this figure is actually down 12 percent from 2014, when a Reddit user documented the 49 available films from the IMDb Top 250 then available on Netflix.”

My take: it seems somewhat disingenuous of Netflix to say its content is 50% original if it’s also reducing the number of films on the service. The analogy is crude, but it’s the difference between peeing in the kiddie pool and peeing in the big pool; the concentration of the same amount of pee is higher in the smaller pool.

Netflix continues to expand

Posted on by
Reply

Netflix continues its expansive plans.

BuzzFeed reports the SVOD (subscription video-on-demand) giant will spend $6 billion on content this year, in the process creating 1,000 hours of original shows.

Meanwhile Esquire reports that the streaming service has made a deal with iPic Cinemas of New York and Los Angeles to screen 10 of their original motion pictures in their theatres, on the same day the flicks debut online. Speculation is that Netflix wants to take home an Oscar, to join their many Emmy award wins, because to be eligible a film must have played at least one week in both cities.

Meanwhile, some filmmakers are turning their backs on Hollywood and making multiple-picture deals with Netflix instead. For instance, IndieWire reports that Mark Duplass‘s “latest film, the romantic drama ‘Blue Jay,’ was financed by Netflix without the company even seeing a script. Instead, Duplass wrote a 10-page outline that allowed for significant improvisation during shooting.”

My take: I wonder how big Netflix needs to get before U.S. antitrust concerns arise. It was less than 70 years ago when the Paramount Decision decreed that vertically-integrated movie studios needed to divest their theatres, as this had created an oligopoly.

Demand.film launches cinema-on-demand service

Posted on by
Reply

The cinema-on-demand space is about to expand.

Joining Tugg and Gathr is new-comer Demand.film.

According to Forbes:

“The three Australian entrepreneurs who created the platform say their dual aims are to enable filmmakers from around the world to reach audiences who would not otherwise get the chance to see their works, and to supplement traditional theatrical distribution.”

They are also disrupting film exhibition accounting and reporting:

“Demand.film is the first crowdfunding cinema service to use blockchain technology to create databases which record high-level, scalable sales information that can’t be changed. ‘The advantages that gives us are transparency and trust with producers, distributors and exhibitors, which will be transformational in the accounting side of the business,’ says David Doepel, the firm’s managing director.”

According to Startup Daily:

“The platform uses blockchain technology to enable independent filmmakers to negotiate a multi-country release in one single deal. While the Demand.film team are being tight lipped on the features of the new platform, Doepel said that the upgraded functionality has been specifically designed with audiences and cinema in mind. Vice president of operations and development for Demand.film Barbara Connell further explained, ‘We’re incorporating some fantastic fintech, which includes Blockchain technology. This will be complemented by new dashboards that can be married to social media campaigns and other social media activity. While this all seems very complicated, the platform has been designed to be very easy to use and to be nimble.'”

Demand.film also operates in New Zealand and the United Kingdom and plans to expand to other countries and North America in 2017.

My take: come to Canada, please! There is so much under-utilized capacity in movie theatres, particularly outside of busy Friday and Saturday nights. How many times have you gone to a matinee only to find merely a dozen or so  fellow patrons sitting in the dark? I would definitely become an impresario once again because the cinema-on-demand model assures a win-win-win-win screening for the filmmaker, the audience, the theatre and the organizer.

Smart contracts come to film financing

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written about the blockchain and smart contracts before. Now we have a breakthrough: the first film using both!

The film is called The Pitts Circus and promises to be a “feature length-horror-comedy movie incorporating the skills, comic talent and uniqueness of a real Australia circus family”.

Investors who buy some of the 666 shares with cash or Ethereum are guaranteed to share in 50% of the profits until 2036. Single shares are $150 USD or 10 Ether.

Caveat emptor:

‘As always with indie movies, there is only a small chance for a huge success — but in case it does take off, it is a journey to the moon.”

Use a wallet you know you’ll control until then because the smart contract will distribute the proceeds, if any, to that account.

My take: I know this sounds a bit weird, but it represents a radically different way to raise financing and settle contracts by using crypto-currency and smart contracts, both made possible by the blockchain. This illustrates the power of the blockchain — it does away with the friction of intermediaries, in this case bankers, advisers, lawyers and accountants. (For kicks, work out how much the 2007 million dollar coin is worth today!)

The quickest way to identify your film audience

Posted on by
1

I see indie filmmakers make their movies and then begin figuring out how to monetize them, i.e. finding a paying audience. (Mea culpa; that’s what we did with Recorded: Live!)

Or, better, they put together a project and at the planning stage, devise a marketing strategy. Part of this will be determining their ideal audience. Too many say ‘Everyone’ will want to see their movie. (Yeah, I’ve thought this too.)

Now, an indie filmmaker half-way around the world enlightens me.

Rihaan Patel slashes the ’10 steps to your audience’, etc., to one simple principle. Writing in a learned language, he offers in
This one is for Innocent Independent Filmmaker who make awesome film but don’t know what happens next!:

“But how to find your potential audience? Just look at the protagonist of your film. And Your protagonist is personification of your audience.”

Simple! He continues:

“Find people who shares quality of your protagonist and share your marketing message. It will connect them.”

Of course! This is a solid strategy that should allow any film to earn its production budget. Ron Mann did this with the DVD Tales of the Rat Fink, which he targeted to hot-rodders. All word of mouth, media coverage and critical reviews just expand the audience beyond the core, and generate your profit.

My take: this is brilliant! ‘Your protagonist is the personification of your audience’ is a great place to start when defining your audience. Literally, then figuratively, and finally metaphorically. (On a recent project, we came close to this, using setting to determine that our audience was small-town Canada — but perhaps we needed to focus in on our heroine and the women and people she represented.) When the ‘Patel Postulate’ really becomes powerful is when you flip it on its head, writing your movie using its audience to personify the protagonist. For instance, it makes no sense for the homeless guy to be the protagonist in my rom-com; homeless guys don’t buy many movie tickets. Rather, a better protagonist would be the earnest woman who befriends him.