From Film School Rejects:
The real problem with new media that no one seems to be detecting yet is the democratic process itself. For all the complaining some do about Hollywood spoon-feeding us crap, democracy as a business model is far worse. Leaving aside the nightmare of actually finding a decent independent movie in the sea of amateur waste floating on social networking sites, consider for a moment that you’re an independent filmmaker with some real chops. Let’s also imagine that you’re stuck, like so many others, and have no possible route to selling your film after studios and distributors stop buying unknowns at festivals.
According to the Youtube model, you throw your masterpiece up there to the gaping maw of the public. If buzz never catches on, if there’s no tipping point, you’re in trouble. But it’s far worse if you actually do get a million viewers in one week. Because, congratulations, your film isn’t marketable anymore. While creating a massive audience for a film, new media simultaneously reduces the sales potential of a movie.
How many of those million will head to the theaters to see a movie on the big screen that they’ve already seen? How many who felt compelled to write “Gr8 job, dood!!” on your profile page will still feel compelled to spend money for the mega-plex release a year later?
Arrgh.
New media is just like old media, only better for artists. Both are about building your quote, how much you get paid to ply your craft. Typically you get low money the first time out and you build from there. But if no one knows who you are, no one will even know to pay you.
That’s where YouTube comes in, if you make a hit that gets millions of views then maybe you can do it again. That’s where you get paid. Just like in old Hollywood you must have a track record of success to get people to pay you moving forward. But there’s a difference, you still own your original work that has been seen by millions. That still has value. People will still buy the DVD, broadcast networks still need to pay you for the rights to air it. Other video sharing sites could license it, etc.
Democratization of the media and the removal of gatekeepers is a good thing. Bloggers are the new gatekeepers. And they are much better gatekeepers than the old school, because they are always going to need pageviews, and their space is unlimited. So if they like something they are going to share it, and if they share it, so might their readers.
The only people that will be hurt by this new open access are the frauds that could previously fool the handful of elites and present themselves as misunderstood artists (*cough*Vincent Gallo*cough*). The emperor’s new clothes are easy to spot in this new world order.
And I have news for everyone. Adults don’t go to movie theaters anymore. And when they do, they generally want to watch the same sort of big experience films that can only be experienced on a 70 foot screen.
So if you want to create small and meaningful films, most likely they won’t be appearing in the local multiplex. They will be watched on DVD, TV, VOD, and the Computer.
But the bigger question is, what is a small and meaningful film? The 90-120 minute single expression has been born out from the theatrical experience. TV series (like what’s being done on AMC, TNT, HBO, and ShowTime) give filmmakers a much broader canvas of 6-10 hours. The web can support expressions from 60 seconds to multiple hours. It all depends on what you have to say.
The only sorts of indies we’re going to see with big theatrical runs will continue to be genre flicks, Jason Reitman-style comedies (well crafted, funny, a little off center, and palatable to the mainstream), and Oscar fodder (big stars going for the statue).
So why the frickin’ hand wringing? I mean Sundance and the other festivals are great, but they can’t get you an audience of close to 90 million that Ask A Ninja has acquired over the last 3 years. That audience has value not only in terms of what we can do to make money from Ask A Ninja, but also in getting us real Hollywood deals. Giving it away got us seen and paid. And now we’re working on raising our quote. 
So stop worrying about the death of indie film. It’s already dead. There’s something better to replace it, but it’s scary because it seems to violate every rule from that old world. We’ll all figure out the new rules sooner or later (and then it’ll stop being interesting).
But now’s the time, if you’ve been waiting on the sidelines wondering if you should jump in or not, this is your official invitation. I’m an adult and I say it’s okay. Come on in, the water’s fine.
14 Comments
June 26, 2008 at 9:47 am
[...] Note: If you have time, take a look at this very interesting response from Kent Nichols, one of the creators of AskaNinja. He definitely has a point about new [...]
June 26, 2008 at 10:06 am
The Internets have obviously been a boon for short-form comedy, but I wonder why short-form (or any length) of drama hasn’t taken off on YouTube, uStream, Vimeo, MySpace video, etc. The biggest non-comedy creations have either been way expensive ad experiments (BMW films), pseudo-reality vlogs (LonelyGirl15), or had eye-rolling, dull premises (Quarterlife). I’m excluding the streaming of major network TV shows on the net because they already have an audience.
I guess what I’m really asking is, where are the Spike Jonze’s and Michel Gondry’s of the YouTube generation?
I agree that online video is a viable future, but why haven’t we had the filmmakers who took a niche form (like music videos) and turned it on its head?
June 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm
This is the sort of thinking that makes me respect you, Kent. The idea that “giving it away for free” builds reputation and relationships is lost on so many people!
June 26, 2008 at 2:31 pm
@francisco I think it’s a little unfair for us to demand gondrys and Jonzes yet. They emerged decades after the first wave of music video people.
June 26, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I am a hobbyist filmmaker (working mostly on the software side of things, editing, coloring etc). I am also a developer and a tech journalist, so I kind of put 1+1 together, the same way Kent does.
The idea is solid. Use the internet. Mostly YouTube.
Problem is, even with the latest Youtube update that supposedly tries to help the indies (I am sure you saw the news item on cnn.com last week), the right experience is just not there. There is no way for someone to download or buy your film via YouTube. And when we are talking about real films rather than 10 second cellphone grabs, a better video quality (at least 480/30p if not 720/24p) is required too. YouTube offers none of that, and for that matter, no other video sharing site does. Sure there are sites that provide 720/24p, like the very popular with filmmakers, Vimeo.com, but they are also not geared properly towards selling or renting films, plus they are a small company hit all the time with bugs.
And no, creating a new site that let’s you do all that won’t cut it (there are already 2-3 efforts), because no one cares to go visit video sites that most people don’t use. It’s like trying to make successful channel 352 on TV rather than Channel 1 and 2 which are “easier” to reach.
So in order to make this “internet idea” to work for the indies, YouTube must get its act together, and provide a real service geared for these needs specifically (even if the filmmaker might have to pay a percentage to YouTube for the additional download/480p bandwidth compared to other normal videos).
I think we are a good 5 year behind on this. But it’s going to get there.
June 26, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Oh, I didn’t mean to come off as demanding. I totally agree that this generation (by generation I mean artists of all ages on the net) simply needs time to mature. The geek side of me just wants it NOW!
I do think the music video comparison is a good one, though, and one that supports your point. Music videos were promotional tools, not just for the bands, but for the filmmakers. Short form. More creative freedom (at least compared to features). A lot like YouTube.
And the folks at NewTeeVee certainly agree — they’re positioning themselves to be a community of gatekeepers vetting through all the new media.
http://newteevee.com/
Ugh, I sound like a shill for them… I only point them out because I think more sites will pop up like it. It’s Rotten Tomatoes for online video.
June 26, 2008 at 9:30 pm
@kent
One more thing. It’s in the subtext of the “democratization of the media,” but when online video does get a foothold, success won’t depend on who you know, but rather who gets out there and interacts, which I think is a good thing. It levels the playing field for unconnected, socially-awkward geeks with no capacity for small talk… like myself.
@Eugenia
“No one cares to go visit video sites that most people don’t use.” Really? I agree that people don’t visit social networks that their friends don’t use, but sites offering an actual service and/or content are different. I bet if a site comes along that offers hosting of high quality video for download and/or streaming, plus a means to charge for that, new filmmakers would come in droves.
Obviously, it’s easier if YouTube does it, but surfing the Internet is way different from surfing TV. Maybe that’s how Google can start making real money off YouTube… host high quality video and take a percentage of revenue.
June 30, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I think your post says it all. There are a lot of websites out there now that are embracing the Internet and democratizing media.
One of these sites to look out for is Indiegogo.com. It’s a site where filmmakers can connect with their fans. They build their fan base and get their films funded before they are made. There’s a lot of tools on the site for indie filmmakers.
Check it out: http://www.indiegogo.com.
July 1, 2008 at 8:52 am
And let’s be clear:
The Indie film movement can use a little “culling of the herd.” If I have to endure yet another film about a filmmaker who just has to make his film…well, I’m going to go ballistic.
We need to have more short films and serials and re-mixes and rethinking when it comes to what constitutes “indie film.”
And what really pisses me off about Film School Reject is that he totally rejects/ignores the lure of the serial when it comes to new media. People will watch the serial online, then get the DVD collection/feature version with all the extras. Remember: It’s not just a movie, it’s the DVD, which equals added value and insight into the world of the film and the filmmaker.
People will pay for that.
And since we are talking about Indie films – let’s also bring up the point that the internet allows the filmmakers to not only sell their film, but all of the cool merchandise which can be derived from it. This is especially true for those of us who specialize in genre films -horror, scifi, action, mystery – all the pulp. People like a cool t-shirt which speaks to a movie they saw. They like a book of the film. They like something that lets them “belong.”
So yes, you are selling your film, but you are also using it as a commercial for your brand.
I just don’t see that happening in traditional media.
July 2, 2008 at 6:14 am
[...] many films are being made, that doesn’t make the indie marketplace any easier. Meanwhile, Kent Nichols, echoing the arguments of many of the new internet indies, argues for “giving it away” [...]
July 2, 2008 at 5:12 pm
90 million! Holy Shit that is amazing!
July 2, 2008 at 5:22 pm
[...] Consulting Stop Worrying About Indie Film [...]
August 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Agreed Kent.
I emptied my credit cards into a dramatic film for the web. Not saying I’m spike Jones by any means. Just saying there are those out there fighting to make things that are different to hopefully push forward the medium. As for gatekeepers – I think they go against the very nature of the web IMO. Let the people decide what works for them – not just a room full – but everyone.
November 20, 2008 at 3:44 am
oh the theater, whatever happened to the theater?
taken over by retrogressive posers and the anal. the critics, the assholes!
books, too all dead and pickled by historians and assholes.
this is the future for film. for records. for radio. for the newspaper. *history* *baby*.