Category Archives: The Mediascape

Amazon Prime Video jettisons some Indies

Posted on by
Reply

Natalie Jarvey notes in the Hollywood Reporter that Indie Filmmakers Puzzled As Amazon Prime Drops Some Poorly Viewed Projects.

“Several emerging filmmakers who relied on Amazon Prime to distribute their work report that their movies have disappeared from the platform without warning. They say they were given no warning about the removal and that Amazon informed them those titles will not be accepted for resubmission, essentially killing any chance that audiences will discover them. Their predicament exemplifies the risk of becoming too reliant on a powerful platform whose benevolence can be fleeting.”

To recap, Amazon Prime is the world’s second largest SVOD streaming service, after leader Netflix.

What’s the little-known backdoor to their viewers? Amazon Prime Direct.

“Amazon has touted the way its video platform supports indie creators, previously reporting that, in its first year, Prime Video Direct paid tens of millions to rights holders…. Being cut off from Amazon Prime… has meant a loss of income for… filmmakers, though it’s pennies compared with even a modest VOD release. Prime Video Direct shares between 4 cents and 10 cents for every hour a title is streamed in the U.S.”

The article goes on to quote Linda Nelson, co-founder of the distributor Indie Rights:

“I would never recommend putting all your eggs in one basket. Indie filmmakers need to take this advice to heart and explore as many opportunities as they can to make sure their films get seen.”

My take: I agree; exclusivity should come at a premium. However, the reality is that it’s very difficult to make your own market. For instance, you could sell your film from your own website but that just begs the question, “How will your viewers find your website?” The unblemished truth is that the last fifteen years have seen all manner of new markets appear, with no clear replacement for the orderly windows and territories model of the last millennium. Just as we’ve witnessed an explosion of digital content, marketing options have multiplied likewise. Luckily, the future has yet to be written; nimble filmmakers can still control their destiny (at the cost of time and effort.)

Samsung’s new AI can bring photos to life

Posted on by
Reply

Ivan Mehta reports in The Next Web that Samsung’s new AI can create talking avatars from a single photo.

Egor Zakharov, Aliaksandra Shysheya, Egor Burkov and Victor Lempitsky of the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology and the Samsung AI Center, both in Moscow, Russia, envisioned a system that…

“…performs lengthy meta-learning on a large dataset of videos, and after that is able to frame few- and one-shot learning of neural talking head models of previously unseen people as adversarial training problems with high capacity generators and discriminators. Crucially, the system is able to initialize the parameters of both the generator and the discriminator in a person-specific way, so that training can be based on just a few images and done quickly, despite the need to tune tens of millions of parameters.”

But why did the researchers set out to do this?

They wanted to make better avatars for Augmented and Virtual Reality:

“We believe that telepresence technologies in AR, VR and other media are to transform the world in the not-so-distant future. Shifting a part of human life-like communication to the virtual and augmented worlds will have several positive effects. It will lead to a reduction in long-distance travel and short-distance commute. It will democratize education, and improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. It will distribute jobs more fairly and uniformly around the World. It will better connect relatives and friends separated by distance. To achieve all these effects, we need to make human communication in AR and VR as realistic and compelling as possible, and the creation of photorealistic avatars is one (small) step towards this future. In other words, in future telepresence systems, people will need to be represented by the realistic semblances of themselves, and creating such avatars should be easy for the users. This application and scientific curiosity is what drives the research in our group.”

Read their research paper.

My take: surely this only means more Deepfakes? The one aspect of this that I think is fascinating is the potential to bring old paintings and photographs to life. I think this would be a highly creative application of the technology. With which famous portrait would you like to interact?

IFC Films Unlimited SVOD to launch on Amazon Prime Video Channels

Posted on by
Reply

Brent Lang reports for Variety that IFC will launch its SVOD service IFC Films Unlimited on Amazon Prime Video Channels.

“In an interview, IFC Films co-president Lisa Schwartz said that the company has quietly been unwinding many of its licensing deals in recent years with an eye towards starting its own service. It will still maintain its distribution pacts with Showtime and Hulu, which have some of IFC’s films in first pay television window. The goal is to start releasing movies on IFC Films Unlimited in the second pay television window. “This is part of a deliberate strategy,” said Schwartz. “We watched the landscape shifting and realized that we’ve got such a terrific large library that we might be better served by taking some rights back and releasing those films under our own roof.” Although IFC’s subscription service is launching on Amazon, the company hopes to add other platforms. “We’re going to continually evaluate as we grow our subscriber base,” said Schwartz. “But our goal is to make this a destination where you can find great films.””

The service will cost $5.99 USD per month after a 7-day trial and requires Amazon Prime Video Channels.

What’s that? From Amazon:

“Channel subscriptions from Prime Video are paid monthly subscriptions to third-party premium networks and other streaming entertainment channels. Eligible Prime members have the option to purchase these subscriptions directly through Prime Video. All of the movies and TV programming included with the subscription are then available to watch on demand, on all compatible Prime Video devices — including TVs, Blu-ray players, Amazon Fire TV, Fire TV Stick, Fire tablets, computers, and Android and iOS mobile devices.”

In other words, like Roku.

But wait, there’s more!

Jared Newman of TechHive reports that Apple TV has just launched “channels” too!

“With Apple TV Channels, you can sign up for services like HBO and Showtime directly through the TV app on iPhones, iPads, and Apple TVs. You don’t have to download separate apps to start using those services, and you can manage all their subscriptions through iTunes billing. Apple TV Channels also supports offline viewing on iOS, so you can download Game of Thrones episodes before your next flight.”

See his chart showing which platforms play which Premium Channel Services:

Macworld has a chart comparing the cost of AppleTV’s premium channels with the native apps, monthly and annually.

My take: this was bound to happen. As digital content continues to proliferate in apps from individual curators, forces of consolidation are appearing to counter the splintering of the viewing environment. It’s a battle between two or three big players to recreate your TV set of old within their app/device. I predict Netflix will go the Premium Channel Service route too.

Netflix fails to market $700M blockbuster

Posted on by
Reply

Brandon Katz wonders in Observer What the Heck Is ‘The Wandering Earth,’ and Why Didn’t Netflix Tell Us About It?

The sci-fi blockbuster is only the third top film of 2019, earning $700,000,000 worldwide, albeit 99% of that in China.

The film was released for worldwide streaming by Netflix on April 30, 2019.

Here’s their short description:

“A looming collision with Jupiter threatens Earth as humans search for a new star. The planet’s fate now lies in the hands of a few unexpected heroes.”

And their long description:

“The Wandering Earth tells the story of a distant future in which the sun is about to expand into a red giant and devour the Earth, prompting mankind to make an audacious attempt to save planet. The multi-generational heroes build ten-thousand stellar engines in an effort to propel Planet Earth out the solar system, in the hope of finding a new celestial home. During the 2,500 year-long journey, a group of daring heroes emerge to defend human civilization from unexpected dangers and new enemies, and to ensure the survival of humanity in this age of the wandering Earth.”

My take: I watched this and saw the references to 2001 and Armageddon. I liked the sentimental payoff of the father-son dynamic but thought the CGI looked more like some video games than cinematic. More concerning is the way Netflix just buried this in their catalogue. Is that all producers of material that isn’t a Netflix Original can expect?

Kessler drops Stranger Things lawsuit

Posted on by
Reply

Just days before the trial, Charlie Kessler has dropped his suit against Matt and Ross Duffer claiming they got the idea for Stranger Things from him.

Charlie says:

“After hearing the deposition testimony this week of the legal expert I hired, it is now apparent to me that, whatever I may have believed in the past, my work had nothing to do with the creation of Stranger Things. Documents from 2010 and 2013 prove that the Duffers independently created their show. As a result, I have withdrawn my claim and I will be making no further comment on this matter.”

According to Variety, he met the Duffer Brothers at a reception for a screening of “Honeymoon” at the Tribeca Film Festival:

“In Kessler’s account of the 2014 cocktail reception, Matt Duffer said, “We should work together. What are you working on?” He said he told the brothers a short film he had made about a mysterious disappearance in Montauk, and said he was seeking to produce a feature.”

The Duffers always maintained they never met Charlie and developed their idea from urban legends about the Montauk Project.

My take: This reminds me of advice someone gave me to never talk about your ideas. You see, ideas can’t be copyrighted; only the expression of ideas can be copyrighted. In Canada, creating a written work automatically grants copyright to the author. So, maybe don’t be blabbing on about your idea until you have a first draft.

 

Netflix’s international competitors

Posted on by
Reply

Scott Roxborough reports in The Hollywood Reporter on Netflix’s international competition.

He says:

“Since Netflix took its streaming video service truly global in 2016, the company has pretty much had the market to itself. But things are about to get very crowded, very fast. While Disney and Apple roll out their own services — with WarnerMedia and NBCUniversal hot on their heels — scores of local players, in Spain and Singapore, Britain and Berlin, are pushing into the SVOD market, looking to occupy at least a portion of Netflix-controlled territory.”

Here’s a list of some of the countries and the contenders:

  1. Britain: BritBox
  2. France: Canal+Series
  3. France: Salto
  4. Germany: TV Now
  5. Germany: ProSiebenSat.1
  6. Spain: Rakuten TV
  7. Spain: Moviestar
  8. Scandinavia: Viaplay
  9. India: Hotstar
  10. Malaysia: iFlix
  11. Indonesia: Hooq
  12. China: iQiyi
  13. China: Tencent
  14. China: Youku

My take: Everyone has woken up and realized there’s a battle for the eyeballs to be won — or lost. As TV continues to decline and mobile continues to rise, old media needs to reinvent itself to take on Netflix, which is itself in its second incarnation. The two advantages they have are their localness and their non-Americanism. However, I think there are big improvements waiting to be made in how viewers discover content. Two ideas: the SJ (Streaming Jockey) who is the next version of the VJ (who was the next version of the DJ) and Viewing Clubs that allow you to band to together with like-minded folks to share recommendations and even comment on things you’re all watching at the same time (I think there’s something like this in Asia already.) This would be one strategy for all the smaller platforms to band together and collectively build their audiences.

Academy leaves Rule Two alone

Posted on by
Reply

Brian Welk reports in The Wrap that “the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has opted against changes to Oscars eligibility that could have shut Netflix productions out of future ceremonies“.

The Academy’s Board of Governors upheld Rule Two, which states that a film must screen in a Los Angeles County commercial theatre for a minimum of seven days, with at least three screenings per day, in order to be eligible for Academy Awards.

They rebuked a proposed rule change by Steven Spielberg that would have seen streamed features restricted to television awards.

The 92nd Oscars will be handed out on February 9, 2020.

My take: when you realize the Academy Awards are a marketing vehicle for the film industry, this spat starts to make some sense. It illustrates the rift between the old guard and the technological innovators. I wonder how Spielberg will feel when Apple+ streams his projects.

Disney+ announced; enough is officially enough

Posted on by
Reply

Disney has officially announced the launch date of its new streaming service, Disney+.

The $6.99 a month service will be available in the U.S. on Tuesday, November 12, 2019.

It will include all of the Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, National Geographic and Fox catalog. Disney tweeted:

“In year one, you’ll be able to rediscover more than 7,500 episodes and 500 films from our library on #DisneyPlus.”

In related news, Raymond Wong of Mashable complains that there are officially too many damn video streaming services.

PC Mag has a good chart comparing ten of the US streaming options.

My take: Over-saturation is becoming a growing problem. I can envision that folks will mix and match services each month, depending on what they want to watch; they won’t be as loyal as in the past. But this is a problem I think that will be eventually solved by an evolution of technology. Remember at the beginning of telephony that each town had its own exchange. These morphed from a maximum of 10,000 users per Central Office to today’s global networks. Likewise, I predict that content will one day flow directly from creators to viewers, bypassing curators. In the meantime, get ready to shell out the big bucks.

European Parliament bends digital single market for indie films

Posted on by
Reply

Scott Roxborough relates in The Hollywood Reporter that the Indie Film Business Wins European Territory Rights Battle.

Recall that European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker had a vision where:

“…we must create a digital single market for consumers and businesses – making use of the great opportunities of digital technologies which know no borders. To do so, we will need to have the courage to break down national silos in telecoms regulation, in copyright and data protection legislation, in the management of radio waves and in competition law. If we do this, we can ensure that European citizens will soon be able to use their mobile phones across Europe without having to pay roaming charges. We can ensure that consumers can access music, movies and sports events on their electronic devices wherever they are in Europe and regardless of borders.”

This threatened the traditional country-by-country pre-sales strategy filmmakers have used to raise money for their budgets in Europe, fearing the digital single market would mean distributors could pay for one territory and get 27 for free. Roxborough first reported on this four years ago; see What’s Behind a Europe Plan That Would “Destroy” Independent Film.

Late last month, in the midst of Brexit, the European Parliament finally got around to approving this legislation, by a vote of 460 to 53. But with a few key compromises:

“The digital single market will apply to online services for news and current affairs — meaning the BBC or Italy’s RAI can offer their online reporting to anyone in Europe. The same applies to productions, including films and TV series, that are fully financed by a single network. But co-productions or films pre-sold in the traditional manner, as well as sports rights, are excluded from the new law. Here the old rules apply: online platforms will have to clear rights in each territory they want to operate in.”

My take: So it’s a blending of old and new. The “fully-financed” stream is interesting because I think it means rich producers (Netflix et al) will be able to treat Europe as one 500-million-viewer territory. Truly indie filmmakers though will still have access to traditional pre-sales, cobbling together an amalgam of territories, soft money and some actual investment in order to raise enough cash to shoot. I know which avenue sounds easier to me.

Indie filmmaking takes time, so have a day job

Posted on by
1

Part One: Claire J. Harris, writing in Noteworthy The Journal Blog, shares some Hard Truths About Making An Indie Film.

It boils down to all the time it takes:

“It may have been rather naïve to produce a feature film when I’d never even set foot on a film set before. How long could it possibly take, I asked myself, then decided the answer was definitely “No more than six months”. Reader, that was almost four years ago. We had six months of pre-production leading up to the shoot — but completing the film took another 18 months. Add three months to prepare our theatrical release, nine months of travelling with the film to Q&A screenings around Australia, and festivals interstate and overseas, then another few months to organise and promote the digital release. Throw in the two or so years I spent writing the screenplay and… I’m starting to find it difficult remembering a time when Zelos didn’t occupy most of my life.”

And all the the self-motivation required to finish:

“When you shoot and edit the film, you have people around you all doing their jobs (you hope) and driving the film forward with you. Then your cast and crew move on to their next projects and suddenly it’s just you, the producer, pushing the boulder up the hill on your lonesome. There’s no one to encourage you or to hold you accountable if you just… stop.”

Part Two: Chris O’Falt, writing in IndieWire, asks 30 SXSW Directors how they make a living.

Here are some of the answers:

  • I am a licensed realtor
  • Producing independent films
  • My family’s toy business Creative Director
  • I work as a writer and actress
  • I am a musician
  • I’m a faculty member at Columbia University’s School of the Arts MFA Film Program
  • I run a legendary karaoke RV, called the RVIP Lounge
  • Digital video editor and event producer
  • Playwright, teacher, and journalist
  • I DP independent films for a living
  • I’ve worked for a decade as a docent and live animal keeper at the American Museum of Natural History. I’ve spent three years in Germany as a falconer’s apprentice. And I’ve worked several years in a military post office. I also make animated, educational content for web channels like TED. And I have a secret life as a visual artist.

My take: I present these two stories together because they’re related. As Claire reminds us, indie films take years. And as Chris reports, most filmmakers need day jobs to keep money on the table; some are lucky to gig in the industry while others look for unrelated work. Making money with movies is indeed hard work.