Category Archives: The Mediascape

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.

Gravitas Movies becomes the latest streamer

Posted on by
Reply

Dave McNary reports, in an exclusive for Variety, that Gravitas Ventures has launched its own OTT streaming venture: Gravitas Movies.

President Michael Murphy says,

“At Gravitas we have always taken pride in being a distributor that can connect the artist and the consumer. By launching our SVOD service, we are taking the next step in bringing our vast young library of films to a global audience.”

Available now, the price is $4.99 monthly or $39.99 annually.

The service is built with Float Left‘s Flicast.

My take: Another one! And Apple has teased Apple TV+. Plus Disney is in the wings with their upcoming service. Really, how many streaming services do they think we can subscribe too? In a world with unlimited virtual real estate, everyone is building virtual digital cinemas/TV stations/nickelodeons hoping to attract our eyeballs. However, we all have limited attention, and pockets. In the analogue world, your choice of movie theatre was limited to ones in the vicinity; your TV set only picked up so many channels and what was playing was mediated by various levels of middlemen. Today, the trick for SVOD is to either go big or go small; have everything or only have one genre or otherwise appeal to a niche audience.

Sony Pictures Television Studios looking to cut costs

Posted on by
Reply

Ryan Faughnder reports in the LA Times that Sony Pictures is launching a specialty TV label for lower-cost shows.

ABSENTIA SEASON 2 PREMIERES JUNE 14th ON AMAZON!! 👁🗣👁👉 All ten episodes of season two willdebut to Amazon Prime Video members in the US, UK, Germany, Australia, Austria, India, Israel, Italy, Netherlands,Singapore, South Korea, and other select territories globally. 👈 🎉👁🎉 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇩🇪🇦🇺🇦🇹🇮🇳🇮🇱🇮🇹🇳🇱🇸🇬🇰🇷 Please Check with your local providers for additional information on countries not listed. #Absentia Stana Katic Patrick Heusinger

Posted by Absentia on Thursday, March 14, 2019

Sony Pictures Television said it:

“…is launching a new production unit to make high-quality shows at a lower cost than the typical series, by taking a page from the indie film playbook. Jeff Frost, President of Sony Pictures Television Studios, told employees that the new label would focus on “producing distinct television programming in the indie feature film style.” The company expects to save money by filming in less expensive locations that offer production incentives, shooting more than one episode at a time and filming over shorter periods.”

This is the business model they used to launch Absentia on their worldwide network AXN.

It seems increased demand for quality television series has raised prices, so more integrated media companies are exploring ways to produce cheaper product.

My take: Did you know Absentia is shot in Bulgaria? I think the trend to more television, perhaps with lower budgets, shot feature-style is a good thing. It means more storytelling. So when you find something that clicks with you, you can immerse yourself into its world. It also means more work around the world for film craftspeople, which can only lead to more local indie work over time.

Spielberg wants to make it harder for Netflix to win a best picture statuette

Posted on by
Reply

Zack Sharf reports on IndieWire that Netflix has responded to Steven Spielberg’s lobbying for rule changes (that would make it harder for the streamer to win more Academy awards) with a tweet:

From the Orlando Sentinal:

“Spielberg, an Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences governor representing the directors branch, reportedly is planning to propose rule changes that would prevent streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Hulu from competing in the Academy Awards without their projects getting a full theatrical run first.”

He makes his case next month, per Anne Thompson:

“Last Thursday, an Amblin spokesperson confirmed that Academy governor Spielberg will bring up at the next Board of Governors rules meeting in April proposed changes that would force streamers such as Netflix to fulfil a more robust theatrical distribution requirement than the 2012 rules demand to qualify for Oscar consideration. It’s not at all clear that Spielberg has enough backing from the 54-member board to put through those rule changes.”

Netflix has won many awards, including their first Academy Award in 2017.

My take: I think Spielberg is afraid of change and the massive buying power of the streaming platforms. He loves movies and cinemas. I too would hate to see the theatre-going experience fade away. But that’s partly the film industry’s fault since they put so much emphasis on movies based on comic books. Imagine how interesting cinemas would look like if comic book movies were banished to TV.

Filmocracy deserves your support

Posted on by
Reply

There’s an interesting project on Kickstarter I want you to seriously consider funding: Filmocracy.

Paul Jun and his team are developing a streaming platform for independent filmmakers that gamifies watching new movies and rating them.

Ratings won’t be simply thumbs up or thumbs down. Instead, viewers will be able to select 1-5 for:

  • Plot
  • Characters
  • Cinematography
  • Performances
  • Dialogue
  • Sound/Music
  • Overall

Half of revenue will be returned to filmmakers based on time screened with another 10% going to viewers.

Check out their pitch and please contribute.

My take: I think this is an interesting model that might just take off. Gaming is huge so why not gamify indie streaming? I’m a backer!

The (almost) free self-distribution strategy

Posted on by
2

Three self-distribution lessons today from L.A. filmmaker Noam Kroll.

Two have no cost, so I’m keenly interested.

Noam shares the distribution strategy for his latest feature Shadows on the Road: TVOD for two months, then SVOD and finally AVOD.

For the Transactional Video on Demand (TVOD) window, Noam chose Distribber ($1,500) to place his film on iTunes. He promoted it hard and was in the black within months because the budget was so low ($12,000.) Later he added it to Vimeo On Demand for international audiences.

For the Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD) window, Noam used Prime Video Direct ($0) to place the film on Amazon Prime.

For the Ad-based Video on Demand (AVOD) window, Noam used FilmHub ($0) to place the film elsewhere — they have ~75 other platforms. You may or may not have heard of many of these: TubiTV, Fandor, Filmocracy, etc.

His goal with this strategy was to break even and then maximize his exposure.

My take: thank you, Noam, for being so transparent here. The key to this successful strategy is to set the financial bar low enough that you can recoup your budget within a few months and then build as many fans as possible.

The crowdfunding platform with best campaign success rate in the world

Posted on by
Reply

Emily Best and her team at Seed&Spark are smiling.

After six years in business, they can claim a crowd funding success rate of 79% in 2018 and an average raising of nearly $15,000 per project.

(By comparison, Kickstarter’s rate was 37% and Indiegogo’s rate was 12%.)

But wait, there’s more!

In addition to being a purpose-built crowd funding platform for film and TV, Seed&Spark is also a distributor and streamer (web, Roku and AppleTV):

“We focus on bringing you wild and wonderful movies and shows from diverse independent filmmakers as well as programming playlists (collections of movies and shows) that you can’t find anywhere else. From festival film favorites to award-winning documentaries to blocks of short films, watching on Seed&Spark means you have many, many, many lens from which to see the world.”

By the way, here’s their origin story:

“In 2011, film producer Emily Best was working with an all-female team to make ‘Like the Water,’ a film they hoped would be at least a drop in the bucket toward more holistic representation of women on the big screen. Unsurprisingly, they hit every imaginable road block in putting the project together, and with just 60 days left before they were scheduled to start shooting, she needed to find $20,000 to finishing financing production. Taking inspiration from the wedding registry model, she and her team created a simple website that listed the items they needed to finish the film – camera, car rentals, grip and electric, coffee – and included a PayPal to accept donations. Over the next month they raised $23,000 in cash – and more than $200,000 in loans and gifts of locations, goods, and services. ‘Like the Water’ would go on to play more than 20 festivals around the world, and the lessons Best learned while crowdfunding – and then trying to get distribution for her film – became the foundation of Seed&Spark.”

My take: Impressive! And Canada friendly too. Worth checking out for your next project.