“Longtime Australian commercials director and cinematographer Mark Toia came up with a preposterously ambitious idea for a debut film: a CIA test of military robots goes disastrously wrong when a group of American doctors arrive in a Cambodian jungle for humanitarian work. Toia, 56, then shot it around the world – starting in Cambodia then moving on to Vancouver, New York and Brisbane. And he and his wife put up $1.6 million of their own ‘hard cash’ to make it, without a cent from government agencies or the film industry. He spent a year seeing whether he could get backing in the US before he and wife Carolyn decided to do it all themselves. ‘I thought, you know what, I don’t really need the money. Screw it. I’m going to do this as a bit of an indie film now for the masses and sell it ourselves.‘”
The result, Monsters of Man, begins streaming online on December 8, 2020.
Do they think they’ll make any profit?
“I have no idea. I decided that if I was going to do a movie, I’d just do my own just for more of a therapy, relaxation type thing. And it was therapeutic. Because we funded it ourselves, I didn’t have to listen to anyone. Because I was a painter as a child, it was like a painting for me. It was like working in my garage, painting away.“
My take: that’s a great concept! And kudos to Mark and Carolyn for putting up their own money. If the movie is anything like the trailer it could be good! I’m slightly spooked by the running time, though.
“I wanted to create something that people would walk away from thinking I’ve never seen anything like that before. A small indie like this can’t compete with Hollywood for spectacle and star power, but we can try to make much more interesting films at least. Make something that when people walk away from it they don’t just forget about it. I want to say it was Kubrick but some director I remember reading years ago said I don’t care if they love it or hate it, I want them to remember it.“
Looks like he’s done that with his latest feature; see the trailer below.
My take: this is great advice! Lacking millions of dollars, we must have something else to beat Hollywood at its own game. That something is: story, attitude and ingenuity.
Up to $100,000 matching funds are available per project, and — the kicker — no broadcaster need be attached.
“This program supports projects in the development stage by experienced producers where no Canadian broadcaster is attached. The total amount of funding available in the program is $3M, divided on a 2/3 English and 1/3 French basis. Eligible projects must be in the Drama, Children & Youth or Documentary genres.”
Confirming that online broadcasting is covered under the Act. Currently, online undertakings that deliver audio and audio-visual content over the Internet are exempt from licensing and most other regulatory requirements. The Bill clarifies that online undertakings are within the scope of the broadcasting regulatory system. The Bill provides the CRTC with new powers to regulate online audio and audio-visual services, allowing the CRTC to create conditions of service and other regulatory requirements under which these online broadcasters would operate in Canada. It also updates the CRTC’s regulatory powers as they relate to traditional broadcasters. The Bill ensures that the Act would not apply to users of social media services, or social media services themselves for content posted by their users. The Bill ensures that online broadcasters will only be regulated when doing so would contribute in a material manner to the objectives of the Act. It will be up to the CRTC to determine which services will be regulated.
Updating the Broadcasting and Regulatory Policies for Canada. The Bill updates key elements of the broadcasting policy for Canada so that the broadcasting system is more inclusive of all Canadians. The Bill recognizes that the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests of all Canadians—including Francophones and Anglophones, Indigenous Peoples, Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socioeconomic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages. The Bill underscores that programming that reflects Indigenous cultures in Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system, regardless of resource availability. It also says there must be a space for Indigenous media undertakings in the Canadian broadcasting system. Additional amendments would also serve to promote greater accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Creating a more flexible approach to regulation and sustainable funding for Canadian stories. The Bill facilitates a flexible approach to regulation, which will allow the CRTC to tailor the conditions of service and other regulatory requirements imposed on broadcasters by considering the Act’s policy and regulatory objectives, the variety of broadcasters in the system (and the differences between them), and determining what is fair and equitable depending on the circumstances. The Bill provides the CRTC with express powers to require broadcasting undertakings, including online undertakings, to make financial contributions to Canadian content and creators.
Modernizing the CRTC’s enforcement powers. The Bill provides the CRTC with new enforcement powers through an administrative monetary penalty scheme (AMPs), which aligns the CRTC’s enforcement powers with how it regulates telecommunications and spam. The objective of the AMPs scheme would be to promote compliance, not to punish.
Updating oversight and information-sharing provisions. The Bill ensures that the CRTC has the tools it needs as a modern regulator, so that it may gather information from stakeholders and liaise with other departments and agencies. It also ensures that commercially sensitive information that is collected by the CRTC in the course of its proceedings is properly protected.
The expected outcomes are:
More opportunities for Canadian producers, directors, writers, actors, and musicians to create high quality audio and audiovisual content and to make that content available to Canadian audiences.
An equitable and flexible regulatory framework where comparable broadcasting services are subject to similar regulatory requirements, taking into account their distinct business models and other relevant circumstances.
Canadian music and stories being more available through a variety of services.
A more diverse and inclusive broadcasting system that is reflective of Canadian society and that serves Canadians from all walks of life.
Mobile Syrup notes: “If the CRTC requires online broadcasters, such as Netflix and Spotify, to contribute to Canadian content at a similar rate to traditional broadcasters, then their contributions to Canadian music and stories could amount to up to $830 million by 2023.”
Not everyone is happy though.
The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting are: “concerned by the fact that multiple sections of the Broadcasting Act have been repealed or amended to remove protections for Canadian culture. For example, the bill moves from mandating ‘maximum or predominant use’ of Canadian creative resources to using Canadian resources ‘to the extent that it is appropriate.’ It also removes language that the broadcasting system should be owned and controlled by Canadians, opening the door to foreign companies to buy up what’s left of Canada’s traditional broadcasting system.”
“In the short term, this bill creates considerable uncertainty that could lead to reduced investment in Canadian film and television production and less consumer choice as potential new streaming entrants avoid the Canadian market until there is greater clarity on the cost of doing business. Canada is set to become a highly regulated market for Internet streaming services and the uncertainty regarding those costs are sure to have an impact. The regulatory process will take years to unfold with a call for public comment, a lengthy hearing, the initial decision, applications to review and vary the decision, judicial reviews, and potential judicial appeals. If any of the appeals are successful, the CRTC would be required to re-examine its decision and the process starts anew. This lengthy process could have a major impact on investment decisions. For example, if you’re a large Internet streaming company that is already investing $100 million per year in film and television production in Canada, you might delay some of that spending until there is greater clarity on what ‘counts’ for the purposes of meeting your new regulatory requirements. New entrants may also delay entering into the Canadian market given the prospect of significant new spending requirements and regulatory intervention into confidential business information. Canada was once a highly attractive market for new services, but this bill may cause new entrants to rethink their plans.“
My take: change is almost always difficult. However, given that the Liberals helm a minority government, the chance of this legislation actually becoming law is very slim. More likely it will die on the Order Paper when the next election is called — I’m guessing in June 2021.
“We’ve explored the science of scare, with our experiment to categorically find the scariest films for your scary movie night. Our team studied critic’s lists and Reddit recommendations to curate 50 of the best horror films ever made, before subjecting them to our test subjects. Watching each movie in 5.1 surround sound, our panel of 50 people consumed over 120 hours of the best horror movies, each fitted with a heart rate monitor to measure which movies got their blood pumping the most to find the ultimate horror movie and crown the king of fright night.”
My take: I think using increased heart rates is a valid method to measure fear. It might be interesting to correlate those quiet passages that followed by very loud sounds with spikes in heart rates as well. Interesting that “classic horror films” aren’t that scary anymore.
Producers are Filmmakers and an essential part of the filmmaking process.
You will work on each project for far longer than you think.
To the industry, the director is king. (Sorry producers.)
It is very unlikely that you will move up in the industry as fast as the directors you work with.
There is no ladder to climb.
You have to create your own opportunities.
She concludes by asking for a system that rewards indie producers for discovering and nurturing the next crop of filmmakers.
My take: thank you, Gabrielle, for a great, heart-felt post, and sharing your experience in producing so far. As to a system that rewards indie producers for discovering and nurturing emerging filmmakers, perhaps you could become their managers or agents? This would guarantee that as they advanced, you could too. Or, maybe we need an Alliance of Independent Producers that would lobby buyers on behalf of its members to make sure experienced and successful producers get better terms.
“Another major movie was taken off of the theatrical release calendar as theater chains like Regal and Cineworld shut down again in the US and UK last week. On Thursday, Disney announced that its upcoming Pixar movie, ‘Soul,’ would debut on its streaming service Disney Plus on December 25 and, unlike ‘Mulan,’ would be available to subscribers at no additional cost. This isn’t the first movie intended for theaters that Disney has released straight to Disney Plus during the pandemic, others being ‘Artemis Fowl’ and ‘The One and Only Ivan.’ But ‘Soul’ is different because Disney seemed to be committing to a theatrical release until Regal and Cineworld closed again.”
This is a departure from their ‘Mulan’ strategy that required Disney Plus subscribers to pony up an extra $29.99.
“There was some important and potentially game-changing language buried in the press release: ‘Under the new structure, the Company’s three content groups will be responsible and accountable for producing and delivering content for theatrical, linear and streaming, with the primary focus being the Company’s streaming services.’ Yes, Disney has officially announced that streaming content is going to be their primary focus going forward.“
Drew wonders: “If 2021 has the Mouse house focusing on streaming, it could spell certain doom for the big movie theater chains. And maybe that will present an opportunity for Disney to swoop in and buy one of these chains. If that happens, who even knows what the future of movie exhibition will look like.”
One person who is dismayed by that possibility is film director Patty Jenkins. Lisa Richwine of Reuters UK reports that “Jenkins is among dozens of top Hollywood directors appealing to the U.S. government to provide a financial lifeline to cinemas. Without it, she warned, the century-old tradition of going to the movies could disappear from American culture.”
She quotes Jenkins lamenting about the closure of movie theatres:
“If we shut this down, this will not be a reversible process. We could lose movie theater-going forever. It could be the kind of thing that happened to the music industry where you could crumble the entire industry by making it something that can’t be profitable. I don’t think any of us want to live in a world where the only option is to take your kids to watch a movie in your own living room, and not have a place to go for a date.”
“Warner Bros and most of Hollywood’s other major studios just announced that pretty much every big blockbuster movie left with a 2020 release date has now been delayed. The only notable exception to this massive movement of movie release dates is Wonder Woman 1984. There’s been no official announcement about any change in that movie’s release, even though the studio in charge of it, Warner Bros., announced they’re delaying everything else they had on the schedule. You haven’t heard anything about Wonder Woman 1984 being delayed for one very good reason: Warner Bros. is planning to stream it. There have been rumors for months now that WB has specifically pondered releasing Wonder Woman 1984 direct to streaming platforms and now according to my source it’s going to happen. This is a source I’ve known for a long time and while they haven’t given me a scoop recently, they’ve been straight up with me in the past. Still, I only have one source on this so as always any time any news item only has one source, take it with a grain of salt. My source tells me that Warner Bros. is sticking with Wonder Woman 1984’s current December 25, 2020 release date because they feel they no longer have any choice but to start releasing their movies on streaming.”
WW84 has been delayed three times and was scheduled to be released theatrically on December 25. Perhaps it will become a major day-and-date release, opening everywhere at once.
My take:Christmas Day has historically been the busiest day of the year for cinemas. But it looks like the Covid Grinch has other plans. My prediction for 2021 is that all film theatre chains will see a change of ownership to the largest streaming companies: Disney Plus, Amazon and Netflix. Imagine if your Amazon Prime membership got you free delivery, free Prime Video and free admission to the local Prime Movie Multiplex? Maybe now is the time to buy popcorn futures?
Since them he’s been searching for someone to take on the preservation of his massive collection. He says:
“A lot of people don’t really understand the intensity and importance of such a collection. It would bring me the utmost joy to pass the torch to a group or individual that has the financial capacity to preserve our immense catalog of films. My only stipulation is that whomever does so gives the community access to our vast film library.”
My take: when you realize that there are only something like 6,000 titles available on Netflix at one time, this collection is 20 times larger. I do hope someone steps up to take it on. Quick math: 120,000 videos at 90 minutes each equals 10,800,000 minutes, or ~20.5 years of non-stop viewing.
The screenings start this Friday with 1917 and Rocketman.
It’s not cheap — each car will cost £32.50. You can upgrade to a “deckchair, table, popcorn and separate area to the side of your vehicle in an exclusive and bigger bay for your car” for an additional £7.50 — presumably per deckchair.
There will also be “a pop-up bar with a large selection of soft drinks as well as alcoholic beverages, popcorn and snacks.”
Two vastly different distribution strategies went head-to-head recently.
Following the status quo, Christopher Nolan‘s Tenet was released theatrically.
Disney+’s Mulan forwent cinemas and was streamed as PVOD (premium video-on-demand) exclusively to its subscribers.
Both are $200-million-plus movies that normally would have been summer blockbusters. How did they do?
Forbes‘ Scott Mendelson reports that “opening in 2,810 American theaters, including some in California, Tenet grossed $20.2 million over its Thurs-Mon Labor Day weekend.” Ten days into its domestic release, The Numbers reports the worldwide gross as $207,500,000.
Daniel Roberts of Yahoo Finance reports “downloads of Disney+ spiked 68% from Friday, Sept. 4 through Sunday, Sept. 6, compared to one weekend prior. Consumer spending in the app also spiked 193%, which can obviously be attributed to customers paying the $30 ‘Mulan’ fee.” Ten days into its international release, The Numbers reports the worldwide gross as $39,601,014 — but this does not include ANY of the streaming revenue.
Because Disney has not released its streaming revenue attributable to Mulan, comparing the two distribution strategies is kind of like comparing apples with kumquats. Stabs have been made to guesstimate the number but it remains a mystery.
“Mulan is outright bombing in China, having earned $8.27 million on Saturday, just 5% from its mediocre $7.9 million Friday gross. Credit the Chinese media blackout, online piracy from last week’s PVOD debut via Disney Plus or that the film isn’t clicking with Chinese moviegoers and Disney made a mistake to presume they would automatically show up.”
It seems neither distribution strategy is doing particularly well.
My take: CV-19 is upending the standard distribution model. While I applaud experiments in new ways to get movies to the masses, I can’t help but wonder if the summer blockbuster is dead. $200-million-plus movies require too large a box office to break even. I suggest immediately making more modest-budget movies. (Hey, throw me $10 million and I’ll deliver a moneymaker.) Check out this primer from Gray Kotze for comparisons between movies at three cost-points:
