WRITING IS THE EASY PART...RIGHT?

Why do writers get all huffy about their "respect"?

Writing scripts is easy.

You just need a cup of coffee, an idea and something to type it with.

Hell, with today's screenplay formatting software, you don't even need to tinker with the different formatting between dialogue, description, and character names. The writing software does it all for you.

So, even a monkey could write a script, if given a laptop and enough bananas as incentive.

Right?

...

No, actually.

And sadly, I come across this attitude towards writing quite frequently.

I'm not talking about ambition. The idea of someone saying they can do something difficult is very different to declaring that same challenge is easy.

Ambition still implies respect.

Declaring the pursuit of writing as 'easy', on the other hand, is akin to the broadest disrespect for the craft. And it is a craft. You have to sculpt characters, create narrative, bound them together in structure, and, if that wasn't difficult enough, make the reader/audience care enough about the whole endeavour to actually FEEL something at the conclusion of the story.

Noah had an easier job.

And yet, still, the writers are taken for granted.

Take this scenario: do you think, from a sample of 16 million people in the general public, you would be able to source a script good enough to be made into a film?

If your answer is no, what if that same group didn't have to come up with the original idea, just to write the script based on a story idea they are given? Would that change your mind?

Surely, given writing is so easy, someone would have submitted a script of notable quality. A secret enclave of talent was finally discovered?

Nope.

And I can say that with authority because it has been tried. Recently, in fact.

Paul Verhoeven, the noted director of 'Robocop' and 'Basic Instinct' completed this experiment in his native country of Holland.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130807-the-public-cant-write

The results were, to put it delicately, awful. But I will let Verhoeven speak for himself on the quality of the submissions:

“You know,” he says, “there may well be some talent out there waiting to be found. But frankly – I doubt it...We actually found the whole process a headache. Because no, the public can’t write – not professionally, anyway..."

Ouch.

But that's for a feature film. Perhaps if it were for something more free-flowing, and a little crass, like a 'Simpson's' cartoon? Surely, someone from a large sample of the public could produce a 'Simpson's' script worth making? How much skill does it take to make Homer Simpson look like an ignorant and oafish middle-aged man?

'Without doubt, the most mathematically sophisticated television show in the history of primetime broadcasting is The Simpsons...Al Jean, who worked on the first series and is now executive producer, went to Harvard University to study mathematics at the age of just 16. Others have similarly impressive degrees in maths, a few can even boast PhDs, and Jeff Westbrook resigned from a senior research post at Yale University to write scripts for Homer, Marge and the other residents of Springfield.'

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/sep/22/the-simpsons-secret-formula-maths-simon-singh

Oh.

Apparently, the Simpsons is written by mathematical prodigies and geniuses, who have made a career of inserting complex mathematical equations and theorems amongst the numerous witticisms on Evergreen Terrace.

'The first proper episode of the series in 1989 contained numerous mathematical references (including a joke about calculus), while the infamous "Treehouse of Horror VI" episode presents the most intense five minutes of mathematics ever broadcast to a mass audience. Moreover, The Simpsons has even offered viewers an obscure joke about Fermat's last theorem, the most notorious equation in the history of mathematics.'

Maybe this writing business is not as easy as is often suggested?

Perhaps, to be good enough to capture the attention and mindshare of millions of people around the world, writers have to develop a skill level that goes beyond strong coffee and formatting software?

Now, that shouldn't be a deterrent to anyone who wants to write for a living. It just means that, if you are serious about it, you must realise that great writers make it look easy. But it's not.

You have to make mistakes. Develop your skills. Learn the craft.

But learning always starts with acknowledging the skill that we don't yet have and admitting that these gaps need to be bridged. That takes humility.

And it starts with respect.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

TRANSITION

I've got to stop getting into internet debates.

There's not enough hours in the day.

It always starts so innocently. Someone posts an article and there is some friendly banter. Differing views, perhaps, but still cordial.

And then one genius always joins in to spoil the broth.

When it is simply their opinion, I usually just let it slide. But when the proselytiser claims something blatantly false as fact, I can't help but get involved. I consider it a civic duty. It's our responsibility that Trojan horse half-truths are corrected when they are aired publicly.

So, the latest debate has been occupying me on and off for hours, particularly because it is about the future of content in a streaming world.

As background for you, streaming services for music have been quite a battleground of late. The most famous of them, Spotify, seems to polarise the most; garnering serious praise and serious criticism in equal measure.

The latest salvo was fired by successful musician David Byrne, with his recent diatribe about how Spotify is bad for emerging musicians, given the amount it pays in artist royalties is so low.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world

This was the article that began the Facebook debate.

I took interest because film is going through the same transition with the growth of streaming services like Netflix. My response was, as I said, respectful:

ME: Good article. Problem is we won't know the answer for quite a while. The article says Spotify has 24 million users. In a world of 6billion, that's a pittance. Until these services hit real critical mass, and have revenues worth sharing with artists, then we won't know if they are a force for good, or not. A services that has 2 billion users, and shares the revenue from them with artists on a proportional/popularity of streams basis, could be something really great for artists. Watch this space

The responses I received were equally thoughtful, but polite.

And then, the zealot decided to speak up:

ZEALOT: 100 million listens (to a song on Spotify) equals $26K (in royalty payments to artists), that is not a sustainable model by any stretch. he isn't jumping the gun, he is trying to enact a change which needs to be made for future generations. he states he isn't writing the article for himself, it's for other artists, up and coming artists that aren't being allowed the opportunities that he was fortunate to have. it's a good thing to have the old guard defend the new wave, hopefully it is a discussion that will lead to a more equitable system.

Seeing an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding about how the royalty payment system works, I responded:

ME: It's not about the number of plays, it's about the number of paying subscribers. That's what determines the revenue pool to be distributed to artists. Currently that sits at only 24m active users and 6m paying subscribers for Spotify (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/07/spotify-thom-yorke-dying-corpse). 6 million paying users is ANEMIC in a possible pool of so many in the 'developed world'. Again, until these services hit critical mass, there is no point making a judgement against whether they are good for artists or not.

Cleared that up, I thought. Not to be deterred, the zealot replied:

ZEALOT: 6 million paying users at $10 a month is 3 quarters of a billion dollars a year, i mean i don't know what critical mass means to you but how much should they be making before they should start paying artists more than 0.009 cents a stream (i.e. per song play)? 5 billion a year? 10 billion?

Seeing the tone change, and noticing this starting to turn into a conversational loop, I replied:

ME: you're missing the point. Only 6 million people pay to use the service. How many artists do they need to pay out? It's simple mathematics: smaller pie, divided by many artists = smaller pieces for all. If they hit mass, and 6 million is nowhere near mass (one album used to sell 6 million records) then it will be big pie divided by artists = bigger pieces for all.

Now, becoming frustrated, the zealot upped the ante:

ZEALOT: 26 thousand dollars for over 100 MILLION listens. you're just hearing what you wanna hear, i get what you are saying but you aren't listening to my point

Do I walk away? Do I take a nap and ignore the response?

No. I was too too deep into the rabbit hole to leave now. So I responded:

ME: You're not listening. It's not about the plays. The plays are irrelevant. The plays determined the proportion you get. The size of the pie, i.e. how much there is overall to distribute, is determined by the number of subscribers.

To give the zealot their credit, this last point finally seemed to have sunk in. But defiance is a strong mistress, leading to this reply:

ZEALOT: what you're saying is all these artists on there now should just wait around like idiots until it can be equitable, the service just shouldn't exist if it's like that.

Finally sensing that this could be a debate with no end, I thought it time to deliver something with a little more certitude:

ME: Yes, the artists will have to wait around ('like idiots' if you want to call it that) for the service to be stronger financially. Just as it was when CD's replaced vinyl. VHS took out Beta. DVDs wiped out VHS etc etc. It is not a new phenomenon that platforms take time to find their footing. It's only in the current period that everyone expects an instant payoff. But it doesn't work that way, and it never will.

And with that, I was free.

Now, you can take two points from the above discourse between a random internet stranger and I.

One, I like to debate. A lot.

Two, moaning about the current market situation for the film, content and music industries, as if it's the new normal, is a serious waste of your time.

It's not the new normal. The current environment for filmmakers and visual storytellers will not be the final paradigm - we are in transition!

Are you old enough to remember when movies were only available via VHS tapes? Then DVDs came along and made VHS extinct. Yes, there was short term pain and expense in updating your VHS to a DVD player during the transition. But, over time, we realised that DVDs could be cheaper and the visual quality was better. Who would go back to VHS?

Times change, however. DVDs are on the way out. Now it's online, streaming services and mobile devices taking over.

Yes, there is some transitional pain again as DVDs fade away into retirement. DVDs made a A LOT of money for the film and television industry, because they were popular and cheap to make. But that's in the past, and no-one is served by lamenting this lost love affair. The DVD cash cow is gone. Forever.

Streaming services will pick up the slack, but it will take time. Streaming services only provide a viable financial return when there is enough paid subscribers to the service. For filmmakers, Netflix is starting to become a viable option, care of it's 36 million paying subscribers. It can only get better from there.

The same for Spotify in the music world. Once more people, than a paltry 6 million, start paying for the service, everyone will win, audiences and artists alike.

That's the only certainty when it comes to transition. The other side has always been better in the end.

Change is hard. It always is. But there will be a sunset.

Then, a sunrise.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

IT WAS AN HONOUR JUST TO BE NOMINATED

We didn't win the best documentary award on the weekend. But we did get quite rollicking drunk, for free, so it wasn't a total loss.

Hence the tardiness this week. I just got back from a wonderful three days at the Blue Mountains Film Festival. The film I produced, 'Part One: Love', was nominated for best documentary, and we went along for the screening and the awards event.

But we didn't win.

At which point I am obligated to tell you it was an honour just to be nominated.

You often hear filmmakers say this. Sometimes it's true. Sometimes not.

The deciding factor is most often the respect with which the filmmaker is treated by the festival. If the festival ensures the filmmakers have a good experience, particularly in relation to their film screening, then a loss on the podium can be taken with good grace.

Thankfully, it was actually an honour to be nominated. The Blue Mountains Film Festival is one that respects filmmakers.

But there are plenty of others that do not.

Some festivals are just bad mannered. Others are downright scams, preying on emerging filmmakers desperate to find an audience. One filmmaker actually wrote an article on his nine worst festival experiences. My favourite is:

‘I know you have flown across the world for the gala opening of the festival, here’s your ticket for the party… that’s $50 please…’ Yes, you get there and they charge you to attend YOUR party and watch YOUR film.'

http://www.chrisjonesblog.com/2013/08/nine-personal-and-shocking-experiences-that-reflect-the-terrible-underbelly-of-some-film-festivals.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_150181905188404_147313_150749278465000#f39d76481

Oh dear.

These experiences are actually good for filmmakers sometimes. They teach you the value of doing your research and avoiding the pitfalls of unscrupulous people. I wrote about one such scam film festival, back in 2011:

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/too-good-to-be-true.html

Since then, it appears that enough word has spread about these scammers to halt their predatory operation.

But for every one that shuts down, there are others still running. Operating with impunity. Ironically, no filmmaker ever thinks to fight back using the power of filmmaking.

Until the Swansea Bay Film Festival.

In what can only be seen as the greatest 180 manoeuvre of all time, a group of filmmakers decided to make a documentary on the horrible experience they had at the Swansea Bay Film Festival. The blatant disrespect shown to filmmakers by the festival eventually made headline news on the BBC, and shut down the scammer.

You can watch the short documentary, for free, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrzNtTcOplg. It's worth the 14 minutes.

What can you learn from their experience?

Trust your instincts and do your research.

These days, there are loads of ways you can learn about whether something, even a film festival, has a sordid history or not. If you don't scratch the surface beyond the hype, which is usually hype the scammers have created themselves, then you are the perfect prey.

But your extra efforts will ensure you end up at film festivals that respect you and your work. Festivals where you will have an amazing experience and engage with appreciative audiences. Maybe you'll even win an award.

Or you won't.

In which case you'll get drunk instead.

And just be honoured to be nominated.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

CHILDREN'S REALITY WILL NOW BE AUGMENTED

I know, I know technological change is hard to process sometimes.

You finish a boozy weekend, your spacial awareness is cloudy, at best, and then your piece of technology starts yelling at you, like a Tamagotchi, for attention.

I don't know what it's like to have a baby. I'm assuming it's worse than how often my iPhone wants its Apps updated. But only marginally worse.

Part of our angst is an aversion to change, change being anathema to the natural human impulse of 'knowing where everything is'.

The other portion of our torment is created by the actual difficulty in navigating the new. Take the recent Apple mobile operating system update, iOS7. The change was enough to bring this kid to tears:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTpXVv-DaBQ

Funny, then heartbreaking on some level.

But when the tears dry and the shortcuts are discovered again, all will be forgiven. Because, unlike adults, children have a short memory for their concerns around technological change. Once they get over the initial shock, they are like a freshly shaken Etch-a-Sketch.

And that's why children get interesting new technology.

Sure, adults do too, to a lesser extent, but only because we have the wallets. If children had money of their own to spend, the vast majority of human technological innovative effort would be aimed at satisfying their wants and needs.

Weeks later, you won't hear kids saying, "Mummy/Daddy, I really miss the old user interface on my iPad." No, as long as there are still the Apps they want, children will survive.

By comparison, Apple were the first to get rid of the 3.5 inch floppy disk drive on their first iMac, released in 1998. Adults STILL talk about it today.

Kids are early adopters. We would have flying cars by now if it were up to them.

Instead, we still have DVDs rather than online streaming services; televisions that still don't properly connect to the internet; and a whole host of other backward facing technology. The adults keep resisting.

To our own detriment.

We miss out on innovations like an augmented reality children's book. It is, truly, incredible:

http://designtaxi.com/news/358872/A-Modern-Pop-Up-Children-s-Storybook-That-Uses-Augmented-Reality/

A child simply holds an iOS device, like an iphone or ipad, over the pages of the book, and they can see the 'hidden' content in the pages. Characters, literally, come to life and dance via the screen. I found it utterly amazing, but you should watch the video sample at the link and see for yourself.

And for filmmakers and visual storytellers, this would be an extremely powerful new way to tell stories. The catch, however, is that you would be restricted to telling stories to kids. Children are the only ones interested at this stage. The adults are not ready.

But thankfully, children's ability to adapt so quickly to new technology is not a skill.

It's an attitude.

And attitudes can be changed, or even emulated, even by adults. So, there is hope for us all yet.

Assuming we can ever get over the new iPhone software update, of course.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

ANGELINA JOLIE STOLE MY CINEMATOGRAPHER

One thing you learn pretty quickly is that Murphy's Law certainly is in full effect.

'If anything can go wrong, it will'.

I say this not to be overly pessismistic, or even bleak, but because I want you to be prepared.

Pragmatic, not defeatist.

Anything worth doing, any piece of work, any great endeavour, any life decision that has the potential to give us meaning (e.g. having a child), has a large element of risk. That's what makes them feel like big moments. It's the act of staring into the abyss, the chance of failure, or pain, or grief, and saying 'it's worth the risk'.

No matter how big or small anyone's life is, we all get to have these moments.

In filmmaking, there are so many elements to bring together, so many people to wrangle, so much good fortune that has to befall you (the weather is a cruel mistress) to allow this remarkable collaborative piece of art to happen, that it can seem like a fool's errand.

In my case, I can simply say that Angelina Jolie stole my cinematographer.

How improbable does that sound?

A Hollywood superstar shooting her latest film in Sydney, and my friend and collaborator gets a job on the production.

At the same time he was meant to be shooting my latest film, pro bono. True story.

What are the chances?

Quite good actually.

Because, if you are serious about making something great, you try your hardest to collaborate with hard-working and talented people.

And hard-working, talented people get snatched up for jobs on major productions with Hollywood superstars.

But that's the point. If you are really aiming high, the risk of problems increases. Great work only comes from taking those kind of chances.

I'm not saying it's desirable to have issues when making a film, or any other something. Far from it.

But I am saying that pushing towards a something that is remarkable is worth the challenges that come with it. It's you that has to be adaptable to overcome them.

Be pragmatic, but not defeatist.

Understand that having more challenges to overcome likely means you are on the path to doing something really memorable.

And, above all, always check whether Angelina Jolie is in town before you schedule your film.


- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

YOU AINT FROM AROUND HERE, IS YA?

Sometimes you wonder whether people have heard of the internet.

I'm not talking about third world countries, mind you, I'm talking about in places like California.

Do people there realise that we can talk to each other worldwide?

Do they comprehend that I can't tell you something is worth $50, when you can easily find out I sell it for $10?

In what dimension could you possibly engage in that brand of two-faced commerce and expect to succeed?

This one, apparently.

I'm not talking about some viagra derivative seller out of Sierra Leone, by the way, I am talking about one of the world's largest companies.

Unfortunately, it's Apple.

It seems that Apple has been in bed with the major Hollywood studios and the music labels so long, that the tech company has started to act like them.

I wrote earlier this year about the 'Dirty Little Secret' of the cause of regional price differentials for movies and music on iTunes.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/dirty-little-secrets.html

The case study I discussed, was the revelation that Australians pay 30% to 70% more on iTunes than Americans do for the same content. Everyone blamed Apple for the higher prices but, ironically, the tech company pointed out the real culprits.

The copyright holders.

The music labels and the studios. Forcing higher prices, for exactly the same content, on audiences in far flung geographic regions. Extracting more money out of dedicated audiences in places like Australia. Why?

Because they can.

Apple claimed the moral high ground and were rightly exonerated in this case. It's a good lesson for anyone, even you, on how to do business in the modern, connected 'Google' era. You can't run from transparency anymore. Wikileaks showed us that.

In business, as in life, honesty, it seems, is the best policy.

But unfortunately, Apple's benevolence was short lived.

This week, the new iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C were announced for release. Their retail prices in America were US$649 for the 32GB 5C, and US$849 for the 64GB 5S.

In Australia?

AU$869 for the 32GB 5C, and AU$1,129 for the 64GB 5S. For exactly the same phone.

Even if you add in 10% GST and adjust for the exchange rate differences, the American price is STILL cheaper by over $100, for both versions of the phone.

And it amounts to little more than a 'you aint from around here, is ya?' tax.

It's a levy on customers who are not in America, for the sole purpose of gouging people for as much money as these companies can get away with.

Are they so stupidly short sighted?

It's like politics these days. The powerful people shut themselves off from other views, demonising the 'foreigners', while their citizens actually talk to each other online. That's why the citizens never want to go to war, but the politicians do. We know these, so-called, 'foreigners' aren't the enemy. They're our Facebook friends.

It's totally backward. A tech company either not caring or not realising that people from different countries would talk about the price they are charged for exactly the same phone.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/10/apple_slugs_australia_with_iphone_tax/

And while Apple's leaders sit in a plush room, congratulating themselves for their genius idea to make an extra $100 per unit for the same phone in Australia, the citizens are talking. They've noticed the regional price difference.

And the citizens are turning against the once infallible iPhone.

How do I know?

'Android' phones now account for 80% of all smart phone sales in the world.

Play regional politics all you want, but ignore the citizens' voices at your own peril.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

OA FILM NEWS - Our founder, Pete Ireland, is a finalist judge for the ATOM Awards for Screen and Media 2013.

There's not enough hours in the day. 

And yet, our founder, Pete Ireland is also a finalist judge for the ATOM Awards for Screen and Media 2013. The quality of the finalist films were exceptional. Filmmakers and visual storytellers, everywhere, are really lifting their game in an increasingly competitive world for artists. 

Everyone wins as the quality goes up. 

For more details about the Awards, visit: http://atomawards.org/judge/peter-ireland/

OA FILM NEWS - Our founder, Pete Ireland, is presenting a session on documentary development at the Blue Mountains Film Festival - 3:30pm, 6th October 2013

For those of you who want to see our founder, Pete Ireland, in person (though for the life of us we don't know why you would), here is your chance.

Pete will be be presenting a session on 'an introduction to developing documentary concepts' at the Blue Mountains Film Festival. The session will be at The Carrington Hotel in Katoomba at 3:30pm on Sunday 6th October.

The session will cover:

"A practical introduction to developing documentary concepts into a format that can be made on any budget"

- techniques to develop documentary concepts;
- techniques to prepare concepts for production; and
- tips and hints to help get your documentary project moving.
- case studies with discussion panel members.
- Q&A

More details, and how to book, can be found at:

http://www.bluemountainsfilmfestival.com/Workshops.htm

OA FILM NEWS - 'Part One: Love' nominated for best documentary at the Blue Mountains Film Festival

2013 is rolling quickly to a close, but the good news keeps coming.

Our film, 'Part One: Love' has been nominated for best documentary at the Blue Mountains Film Festival.

This is a wonderful compliment to our film from an excellent festival that is dedicated to cultivating film culture and supporting filmmakers.

http://www.bluemountainsfilmfestival.com/Friday4th.htm

And a special thanks to the team at Metro Screen for a special congratulations they gave us on their website:

http://metroscreen.org.au/part-one-love-the-blue-mountains-film-festival/

Our screening is this Friday 4th November at 8pm. We hope to see you there.

BINGE

So, it's Election Day +1 in Australia (NOTE: I originally wrote this on 8th September).

A victor has been crowned. Champagne is being packed away. Excuses are being formulated on the losing side.

On the more personal level, individuals are getting out their last rant on social media. Some are enjoying a satisfying victory gloat. Others reminding us all why we will regret this decision in the months to come.

Personally, I have a view on the election outcome, but it's all a moot point now anyway. I've taken to making fun of the whole absurdity on Twitter.



Made me laugh. Humour always seems like the best response to me.

Regardless of the election outcome, however, there is one overall element I observed that was extraordinarily encouraging.

Passion.

Isn't this supposed to be the era of the apathetic?

But there it was, on full display. Genuine passion about the election from people of all credos, professions and demographics.

There was a lot of parochial disagreement, of course, but the level of audience engagement with the overall election should make any filmmaker jealous.

The obvious explanation is that politics is an unusual beast, capable of stirring a more fervent response in people. That may be true, but why then are Australians forced to vote?

What if it's not just about politics bringing out the zealot in everyone? What if the passion we see at election time is about something fundamental to engaging with people's innermost thoughts and desires? What if the reason that elections inspire such passion, is because the discussions they engender provoke thought and emotion in people?

And isn't that exactly the goal of a filmmaker or visual storyteller: to connect with people and provoke them to think and feel something?

That's what was wonderful, for me, about the election. The audience responded.

Why is that wonderful?

Because for filmmakers and visual storytellers, including me, who are out in the world trying to connect with audiences, it is easy to get disheartened. It's a difficult task engaging with audiences. They have so many options these days. After a while, you can start to assume that there is no audience for you out there.

And then you see the response from people the election creates.

And you realise that you should never, ever, confuse the difficulty in finding and engaging with an audience with a lack of demand.

Audiences are out there. They want to be provoked. They want to respond. They want films and visual stories BADLY, as long as the quality is high enough.

But you don't have to just take my word on it. Oscar-winning actor Kevin Spacey very recently gave a terrific speech on how enthusiastic audiences respond when given great stories.

They binge on them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23802572

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ukYf_xvgc (video excerpts of his speech)

He was speaking about his recent hit show, 'House of Cards'. In a departure from the norm, Netflix released all of the show, every episode, at once. No more waiting for next week like on traditional television.

And, just like in the election, the audience responded with gusto. With passion.

They binged.

This is the goal for filmmakers to aspire to. To tell stories that create this kind of engaged response.

It's not easy. Just like the election, there are winners and losers from the speed dating between filmmakers and audiences. Especially in this era of far more choice than ever.

But the good news is that the audience is definitely out there.

They're waiting.

Waiting, for us to make the first move.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

THE SWARM

The audiences of the past were like battery hens.

Forced into the cages of limited options, they were told what to watch, when to watch, and how to watch.

New audiences are a swarm.

Freed from the cages, they can't be controlled. Can't be hemmed in to limited choices. Can't be fed rubbish and told it's great.

Facebook. Youtube. Twitter. Netflix.

These platforms don't control the swarm. They just provide a comfortable hive where the swarm can rest. A place to gorge themselves on the sweet nectar of quality visual storytelling.

Then they move on. Remember the demise of Facebook's predecessor 'MySpace'?

The swarm goes where it wants.

And that's not a bad thing. Because the swarm, alive and free, has many more members than the battery hens ever did.

There are vastly more opportunities, therefore, to find an engaged audience.

For visual storytellers, however, the challenge is now greater. There is no longer a captive audience. You have to attract the swarm.

You have to make something great.

'Tastemakers' can help you a little. A traditional media story. A blogger with a large following. Jimmy Kimmel and other celebrities, with a tweet or two.

But, for you visual storytellers out there, don't be confused. Help from a tastemaker will not make you a success.

The only power of the tastemakers is knowing where the swarm is.

Attracting the swarm, giving the swarm quality visual stories to encourage them to stay and binge...

...that's up to you.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

SEEING IT

So, it's late at night and 'Geordie Shore' starts playing on the television. 

I'm not really watching the TV at this point. I keep it on for background noise some times. I grew up in a noisy house, you see. Absolute quiet bothers me in a way I can't quite define. I feel disconnected from the world in a way that's disconcerting.

The quiet hum of the television, regardless of the program that is on, helps dissipate those childhood anxieties.

But something about this new show draws my attention. Is it the intelligent discussion? The moving relationships? The powerful storyline?

In a word, no. This reality show is a train wreck of humanity. Vapid, vain and vacuous twenty-somethings get drunk and shag each other.

And yet, from what I hear, the show is a hit. How?

There is so much to do and see in the world, how do these shows survive? Why do people gravitate towards visual storytelling?

Put another way, what is it about 'seeing' stories, even ones of questionable quality, that is powerful enough to draw people in?

Think about the amount of time, discourse, effort and resources that go into making and watching visual stories every day. It's a mind boggling level of human undertaking.

And yet, even in the poorest parts of the world, in places which define poverty, people have televisions.

In areas untouched by modernity, cultures still have visual performances.

In these totally unrelated microcosms, seemingly with no awareness of each other, still the visual story becomes integral to their human experience.

Why? Is it coincidence?

Or is there something innate to us as creatures, that somehow the visual gets pride of place on the sensory pyramid? I am not saying that the other senses are less important, but human history tells us that we perceive the visual as a far more powerful stimulus than any other.

Don't take my word for it. 'Seeing is believing', remember? I didn't invent that turn of phrase.

Is that all a coincidence too?

I'm not convinced. There is so much that is random in the world, and yet so much that seems to follow unseen or unknown conventions.

For example, all 'matter' (i.e. in the scientific sense, the general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical existence) across the known universe, including us, vibrates. Did you know that?

That may seem like a small, unrelated oddity, but it is in fact amazing. All physical reality following the same convention of vibration.

So we are all vibrating, and therefore resonating sound at different frequencies, constantly.

And here is something I didn't know. Sound can be 'seen'. It's called 'cymatics'.

Which leads to the most amazing part. Through cymatics, which is the study of visible sound, scientists have determined that different sound frequencies (e.g. different notes on a piano) create different symmetrical visual patterns of vibration.

I'll say that again.

Have you ever seen a photo of crop circles? Sound waves create distinct symmetrical patterns exactly like these, in a way that can be seen by the human eye.

Simply, amazing.

The most incredible experiment is one which uses white powder on a metal plate. The experiment then plays different sound frequencies through the plate and literally shows you the patterns formed by sound. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtiSCBXbHAg

So, there are visual patterns, imperceptible to us, that come from the very core of our existence.

Visual patterns, created from the vibration that makes up our physical reality.

Is it any wonder then, that 'seeing' is so important to us? That people are drawn towards visual stories? That the ability to visually perceive the patterns that make up our lives, our stories, could be inherent to our very existence?

Why then do we waste the gift, the responsibility, of visual storytelling on stories that are undeserving?

And, most importantly, what the f*** am I doing wasting this gift watching 'Geordie Shore'?

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE

August, 2013. Two men sit next to each other on a plane.

The men have no comprehension of the series of seemingly inconsequential events that have lead to the truly incredible moment they are about to share.

FLASHBACK. January, 2008.

A young man enrolls to study film at a film school. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to delay the beginning of his studies until the next semester.

March, 2008.

The young man quits his current, highly demanding, day job and takes a more relaxed new day job at a government department. The new job will give him more freedom to complete his film studies.

July, 2008.

The young man begins studying at a film school in Sydney. Over the course of the next six months, his slavish devotion to his new studies results in the end of the young man's six year relationship with his girlfriend.

August, 2008.

Another young man, Tony, begins teaching at the same film school. Tony becomes the documentary teacher for the devoted student.

October, 2008.

The devoted student receives a promotion in his day job at the government department. He now works in the Human Resources section of the department. His mother is very proud of him.

December, 2008.

Tony completes his time teaching the devoted student. They become friends. Meanwhile, the devoted student's six-year relationship has officially ended.

December, 2009.

The devoted student has become friends with a female colleague in his day job at the HR Department. The colleague asks the devoted student about his romantic life, to which the devoted student replies unenthusiastically. The colleague suggests that she has friends who might be interested in an amorous arrangement. The devoted student replies enthusiastically this time.

January, 2010.

The devoted student is dating one of the colleagues' attractive friends, Patti. Things are going well. The devoted student discusses his developing relationship with Tony. Tony replies enthusiastically.

October, 2010.

The devoted student has finished film school and is starting to make his own films. Patti, now his official girlfriend, mentions that her work colleague, Dominic, wants a new corporate video for his personal website. Patti suggests that the devoted student and Dominic get in touch.

December, 2010

The devoted student and Dominic meet for the first time at a cafe to discuss the corporate video. The devoted student has ideas. Dominic responds enthusiastically.

June, 2012.

The devoted student, Patti and Tony all go out together for a drink. Tony and Patti get along beautifully. The devoted student is relieved and happy that the two hit it off.

January, 2013.

The devoted student and Tony are now close friends. Patti and the devoted student are still together. The devoted student, Patti, Dominic, and Dominic's girlfriend all go to Japanese dinner together, becoming quite animated after a bottle of saki. Life is good.

August, 2013.

On a whim, Tony buys a last minute ticket and departs on a sudden trip to New York, via Los Angeles. The devoted student smiles: Tony has a penchant for dramatic exits and entrances.

Tony makes himself comfortable for the long flight to L.A. He is fairly accustomed with flying by now, as long as he observes some well practiced rituals. Soon, he will be enjoying the pseudo life changing effects of an overseas holiday, with all of the forgetfulness of day to day trifles that vacationing entails. Life is good.

Tony makes eye contact with the man sitting next to him. They exchange pleasantries, culminating in the quintessential "what do you do for a living?"

Tony contemplates his answer momentarily and replies: "I work in film."

"That's interesting," Dominic replies, "do you know a guy named Pete Ireland?"

Tony looks back at Dominic, slightly stunned. He tells Dominic that he does know a Pete Ireland, who was once his devoted student, and is now his friend.

Dominic excitedly explains that he has know Pete's girlfriend Patti for eight years. Dominic is headed to Las Vegas for a buck's weekend, via Los Angeles, and booked his airline ticket at the last minute.

They stare at each other a moment. Both can sense the gravity of this meeting, but can not quite perceive why. It is electric.

And so, the two men sit next to each other on the plane. Tony and Dominic.

They can not fully comprehend the series of seemingly inconsequential events that have lead to the truly incredible moment they just shared. The sequence of choices, of life events over 5 years, that had to occur in a particular way and in a particular order is beyond improbable. Miraculous.

And, believe it or not, this is a true story.

I hear people say that 'every story has been done before'.

I say they are not looking hard enough.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

AMBASSADOR OF QUAN

Have you ever heard of the film 'Heaven's Gate'?

It's known as the film that bankrupted a Hollywood studio, 'United Artists'.

What came as the biggest shock is that it was the follow up for Director Michael Cimino after he had, literally, just won an Oscar for 'The Deer Hunter'.

How could it all go so badly?

All too easily, I'm afraid.

One of the worst kept secrets about making films is that, to the people willing to invest in film, it is a high risk-high reward gamble. That is why you often hear film producers using rather unsexy language like "managing risk" and "hedging".

I know, I know, it's supposed to be about art.

But how much does paint and a canvas cost? Or a laptop to write your amazing work of literary genius?

Films are a very different animal. The people playing in this world have to drive themselves partially insane learning the quirks of financial deal making. Where else do you think Producers find $25 to $100 million to make a film?

If it seems all a bit alien to you, try this. Imagine you are in the desert with three people and one bottle of water.

Desperate, desperate, thirsty people.

In the distance is a person with a sniper rifle, watching you intently. Whoever makes a move towards the bottle of water gets a convenient new orifice in their torso.

So there you sit. Mere feet from salvation that you can see but cannot touch. The desert sands whip your face. Staring at the faces of the others. Strategising to get what you need.

This is the life of Producers looking to finance a film. They know money is out there to make their projects. They can see it. They are surrounded by others who want it. But they can't touch it without someone else's permission.

And they are so desperately thirsty.

In this kind of environment, Film Producer's often get creative in how they draw money into their films. The one I hear suggested ALL THE TIME, by beginners and experienced filmmakers alike, is product placement.

It seems so simple. Just insert a watch, a car, a sugary beverage into a scene in the film, and money will rain from the heavens onto your project.

It sounds so easy, doesn't it? Why isn't every filmmaker doing it?

Perhaps that's the point.

One of the biggest to ever try it was 'Jerry Maguire'.

Reebok, the shoe manufacturer, had a large product placement deal and cross-promotional deal with the film. The idea was that main character 'Rod Tidwell' (played perfectly by Cuba Gooding Jr) tells his manager 'Jerry Maguire' (an also wonderful Tom Cruise) that he has a long running dispute with Reebok, who ignore him despite his success as a professional American football player.

To get an idea of the tone of Tidwell's angst, his summation of the story is:

"Let me boil it down for you. F**k Reebok. All they do is ignore me! Always have! Always have."

From this low point, Reebok were expecting the film to show a happy ending where Tidwell achieves redemption as an athlete, Maguire evolves as a man, and Reebok signs a shoe promotion deal with Tidwell to end the riff.

Unfortunately, as in many films, certain elements get left on the editing room floor. In this case, Tidwell's redemption stayed in, as did Maguire's evolution. The happy ending for Reebok, however, didn't make it into the final film.

So, Reebok sued the filmmakers.

And it got increasingly nasty.

Until finally, The case was settled out of court on confidential terms, after both parties spent considerable sums in a dispute that could have been avoided.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/07/business/reebok-s-suit-over-jerry-maguire-shows-risks-of-product-placement.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The problem, you see, was one of assumptions. Reebok expected the happy ending to DEFINITELY stay in the film.

The filmmakers thought that they had artistic license, as all filmmakers are used to having.

And of course, the written agreement they had signed was not nearly as clear on these points as it should have been.

Oops.

At least the lawyers got rich.

So, filmmakers beware. I want that bottle of water as much as you do. I applaud your ingenuity to find a solution and your passion to get your films made.

But DO IT PROPERLY!

If it seems easy, it's probably because you are missing a step.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

THE 99%

If I asked you right now, when was the 'Global Financial Crisis' (the GFC), what would you say?

2010? 2011?

Would you believe 2008?

Good, because it was officially 2008.

Five years ago, and yet we are still talking about it and, seemingly, still dealing with the consequences.

Having said that, not everyone is feeling that same pinch as you and I.

'All told, the Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5%. Total profits soared 81%. But guess who didn't benefit much from this giant wave of cash? Millions of U.S. workers stuck in a stagnant job market.'

www.money.cnn.com/2011fortune500

'On Wall Street, setting up and running "Infrastructure Funds" is big business, with over $140 billion run by such banks as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Australian infrastructure specialist Macquarie. Goldman says it will be involved with "ownership and operation of public services, such as airports, toll roads and shipping ports, as well as power generation facilities, physical commodities and other commodities infrastructure components, both within and outside the United States." While the bank sees increased opportunity in "distressed assets" (ie. Cities and states gone broke because of the financial crisis), the bank also recognizes "reputational concerns with the manner in which these assets are being operated or held."

The funds themselves are clear when communicating with investors about why they are good investments -- a public asset is usually a monopoly.'

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/america-for-sale

You get my point.

While the world at large still feels the effects, like the days after a questionable meal, a small minority has gone right back to business as usual.

So, why is there still this lingering shadow?

While I believe there is some level of politics involved, using the GFC as a hex sign to ward of difficult questions from a disgruntled public, there is also a fundamental fact worth noting.

'The financial crisis has caused the "emerging" and "developing" economies to replace "advanced" economies to lead global economic growth.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308

This is more than just politicking. The inconvenient truth is that the global balance has shifted dramatically and I, for one, am not sure that it is ever coming back.

What does this shift mean?

That's a complicated question, but I believe the fundamental answer is 'sustainability'. Not just in environmental terms, but in the way our society fundamentally operates.

If an industry exists now that is built on survival principles of: enormous rapid growth; burgeoning customer numbers; and expansion via cheap debt (which so many industries in the 'Western/advanced/First World economies are), they are set to join the Dodo.

(Extinction, that is, for the youngsters who don't remember the bird.)

It just isn't going to work that way anymore. The businesses that build up in these unsustainable ways are all doing exactly what unsustainable businesses do: abandoning advanced countries to chase low wages (i.e. virtually slave labour) and low costs in developing countries.

What is left will actually have to be based on something tangible. Real customers. Real sales.

How is this different to the past?

Because the old way of operating was, pardon my French, based on bulls**t. So much of how our society evolved was based on lies, assumptions and, quite frankly, more lies.

By way of example, I give you the impact on advertising of the internet.

Once upon a time, you were forced to watch between three and five television channels. They were the only ones in existence, and you had to watch pretty much what they told you to watch, when they told you to watch it.

In this environment, broadcasters could charge a fortune for advertising time on their channels, because they knew that people were forced to watch the commercials.

That was regardless of whether people were really engaging with the advertising or not.

Leap forward to now and this false paradigm has been completely turned on its head by the internet. Now, online, we can actually check whether you engage with the advertising or not, based on whether you skip the advertisment, or click on it to get more information.

The fake and intangible way of doing things, based on lies and assumption, has given way to 'clickthroughs', data and tangible results.

This is the essence of sustainability. This is exactly where we are evolving towards.

Loose cash is not floating around like it used to. To convince someone to be in business with you, it is not enough to bombard them with your polished sales pitch. You have to show them something real. You have to do the work.

Put in the hours to develop your craft. Polish the script. Make a great film. Connect to a real audience.

And for the world outside of the film industry, the story is similar. Your work, no matter what it is, has to add real value to people's lives. If you are not adding value, you are a luxury, and very few of us have as much time for luxuries as we did during the era of cheap credit.

The good news is, for those willing to put in the work and actually think about how they contribute to the whole, there is plenty of opportunity.

But you have to be willing to put in the 10,000 hours it takes to get there. You have to stop taking for granted that you should just 'have a job' without thinking about whether your efforts are actually wanted or needed by anyone.

The GFC may be officially over, but the new paradigm it created is only just beginning.

Are you evolving with it?

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

THE EQUATION

There is so much angst and hand wringing going on about the changing film and media landscape today, that you could be lulled into thinking that poverty has been solved in Africa, given the lack of relative air time.

Climate change anyone?

No, no, the biggest problem we face is the evolving film and media industries. That's the albatross.

Give me a break.

Recently I was chatting to an active feature film producer over a beer. I'll spare you the intricate details, but his final conclusion was a wish that he had been born ten to fifteen years ago. This 'golden age' would have been optimal for his choice in lifestyle.

On some level, he is right. 1995 to 2005 was the utopia of the modern film era. Big money, big budgets, big sales of content. Nobody lost. Right?

Wrong.

The audience lost. You were being screwed, paying huge margins on DVDs that cost a tiny fraction of their retail price to produce. And oh, the money flowed.

From you, directly into Hollywood bank accounts.

And now, after years of being hoodwinked into overpaying for those shiny disks, you are expected to feel sorry for the film industry's economic problems? Why?

Why wouldn't audiences rebel against this Faustian pact when given the chance to get a digital copy for a 90% discount, or heaven forbid, for free? What loyalty have we built to our product?

Hint: the answer is the same as the number of people who think that celebrities are underpaid.

But where does that leave us? People want content. Filmmakers and visual storytellers want to create their art. Can't we all just get along?

Of course we can, but it starts with some truths.

First, the DVD market is never coming back. The bottom has fallen out and it is gone forever. Yes, there are still significant DVD (and Blu Ray) sales, but the numbers have been significantly deteriorating every year since 2009. These numbers will continue to deteriorate until the DVD is extinct.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/

Personally, I don't understand why this is a surprise. Getting your movies, TV and media quickly and cheaply online, with access to everything ever made, trumps ownership of a destructible disk. Hands down.

Second, we have to start rebuilding trust with our audiences. Overcharging a family of five for cinema tickets is not the answer. Neither is longing for a time when we could charge our audiences a 900% markup on a DVD.

Instead, we have to show our audiences that there is value in cinema and visual storytelling. We have to remind them that the experience engendered by film's blending of the visual, the written, and the aural arts is what makes it the supreme artistic medium and the greatest portal for exploration of the human condition.

By seeing the value in the art, audiences will comprehend the need to support the artists.

And finally, we need to understand that, despite the current tumult, the future of the film and content industries is based on an equation.

I grew tired of hearing the moaning and consternation about the opacity of the future of film and media, without any effort being directed to define the problem. So, rather than join the chorus of the damned, I instead present to you a model that attempts to capture the albatross. I call it simply, 'The Equation'.

THE EQUATION =

                                                        Declining DVD Revenues
                                                                          +
                                                     Rising viewing by 'mass' online
                                  (i.e. rising online advertising and subscription revenue)
                                                                          +
                      Decrease in production costs and studio overheads due to new technology
                                 (including marketing and distribution costs of each film)

                                                    = health/future of the film and content business worldwide.

Currently, 'The Equation' is unbalanced. The decline in DVD sales has been so enormous, and so rapid, that the other factors have not adjusted.

Yet.

But eventually, evolution will occur. The promise of online is both boom and bust. Desert and oasis.

Online means that, instead of charging a small market a HUGE amount for a DVD, you charge a small amount for the online version. That's the bust, relative to the DVD selling 'golden age'. The upside, however, is that DVD's reach only markets, but with online you can reach the world. Suddenly, everyone with an internet connected device is a possible audience member, and lower price points means you can more realistically sell to a greater proportion of these people too.

You replace a fixed market of DVD sales with exponential rises in viewing by the 'mass' online.

The new paradigm also brings the promise of cost efficiencies for filmmakers, which will be essential to the industries' future health. I have covered this third element of 'The Equation' previously...

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/avarice-and-myth-of-hollywood-implosion.html

...but, for clarity, digital filmmaking technology should be driving production and distribution costs down. No more expensive film stock to shoot on. No more expensive developing of the film stock. No more expensive sending of physical copies of the film worldwide. A penny saved is a penny earned.

Unfortunately, the film industry is notoriously slow in accepting efficiencies, and this improvement has not taken hold.

Yet.

So there you have it. A picture of the elements that make up the future of the film and content industries. Not a bleak armageddon, but a slowly evolving new model, with factors that are gradually rebalancing themselves.

Surely, this new found clarity should be welcomed with a warm embrace by filmmakers and visual storytellers alike?

No, the Producer informed me after another resigned sip of his beer. I had just spelled out 'The Equation' for him, and he didn't like it.

No. It would be much better to go back to the world ten to fifteen years ago.

Better for whom exactly?

For Producers. For him.

But not the audience?

No.

(Sigh)

There's just no helping some people.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

ZOMBIES, DRAGON SKULLS AND YOU

It's July.

Can you believe it? Where has this year gone?

And more importantly, how are you holding up amongst the frantic pace of it all?

It's exciting but simultaneously petrifying. So much happens, but so little time do we get to stop and mull.

When we do, the need to dig deeper hits us at bizarre moments. One minute you are doing a quick email check, hours later you are reading about nuclear fission on Wikipedia. At 2am.

But that's part of the fun in life, isn't it? Taking time to go beyond the superficial. Lifting the rock and seeing what's underneath?

That's where life get's interesting.

Remarkably, the compulsion to dig deeper is fairly universal. It's a foundation trait of humanity. Natural curiosity.

It's the reason why camera shy directors end up in a sound booth recording commentary for their movies. If you have made people feel something, anything, they want to know more. How did you tap into their emotional response?

While I respect the question, I find a lot of the extra content pretty dry. Borderline unwatchable.

Recently, however, a friend sent me a link to an amazing piece of additional content created for the TV Show, 'The Walking Dead'. It is an interactive, comic book style, animated web site, showing how the zombie hoard, called 'walkers' are created. Of my favourite tid bits:

- actors who play 'walkers' have to go to zombie school;
- walkers in zombie school go through an obstacle course, where each 'walker' has to learn 10-12 different ways to move around an obstacle; and
- the colour of the blood on the zombie's is called 'Zombie Dark' and the formula for it is top secret.

http://www.cabletv.com/the-walking-dead

I find this fascinating, but what is truly noteworthy is that this additional content grabs and holds my attention on its own merits. Intrinsically.

And before you accuse me of bias, labeling me a 'Walking Dead' fanboy, you should know that I have never seen the show.

I have also never watched 'Game of Thrones', although I seem to know a lot about it from the horrified cries of the fanverse on Facebook. My ignorance, however, was no barrier to me being enthralled by the news that a dragon skull 'washed ashore' in England. The photos in this article capture it best:

http://geektyrant.com/news/2013/7/17/giant-dragon-skull-washes-ashore-to-promote-game-of-thrones

Shortly after, it was revealed to be an elaborate promotion for 'Game of Thrones'.

And yet, it was still remarkable enough for me to take a moment to see it. That is the power that great content, even if it is just the additional content, can evoke when it meets human curiosity.

The power to draw an audience.

This power may seem trivial but, in a world where we are constantly bombarded with information, and seven months can fly by in a blink, such power is impressive.

But what does this mean to you?

For content creators, it goes to show that, when you create something with skill and care, rather than as an after-thought, it can grab attention. Even in a time poor world.

In short, never do anything half-assed. Not when people are creating fantastic content as the additional material for their main work.

And for the rest of you?

It means it's July.

Soon it will be December.

Time passes too quickly.

So, for your own sake, whether its a zombie, a dragon skull or something else that makes you smile, take a moment to appreciate it.

Moments are all we have.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

AVARICE AND THE MYTH OF THE HOLLYWOOD IMPLOSION

'The Lone Ranger', Disney's new $250 million dollar summer blockbuster, looks like it is going to lose $150 million for Disney.

That's not a typo. $150 million. Lost.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disneys-lone-ranger-could-lead-581503

To some analysts, this failure signals the beginning of 'the Hollywood implosion' that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas recently predicted.

I disagree.

You see, I also wrote recently about the glum prognostications of Mr Spielberg and Mr Lucas:

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-glum-prognostications-of-steven.html

I suggested that, instead of evidence of an implosion, their predictions are evidence of a different trend: the wave of technological change turning the existing experts into novices, just like the rest of us.

I also pointed out that, remarkably, no-one is highlighting the fact that film budgets continue to expand, while the technological means to make films actually becomes cheaper and more accessible.

And then, amongst all of the chatter of doom and industry implosions, 'The Lone Ranger', and its suggested dismal box office returns, seems to provide timely evidence for the pessimists.

Or does it?

There is a very small gem of vital truth in the Hollywood Reporter article about 'The Lone Ranger' and its predicted failure. I suggest you read it, however, just in case you are feeling lazy, the critical passages are:

'In August 2011, former Walt Disney Studios chairman Rich Ross suspended production of Lone Ranger because of concerns over the $250 million budget in the wake of box office bomb Cowboys & Aliens, also a Western.

But after Bruckheimer and Verbinski promised to scale back the budget to $215 million, Disney gave the go-ahead. As part of the agreement, Bruckheimer also agreed to pay for a portion of any budget overages, although it isn't known what the split is between him and Disney. That arrangement could put some of the financial loss on Bruckheimer's shoulders.'

Did you see it?

I even bolded it for you.

The critical question, we should all be asking, is how do you simply 'scale back' $35 million dollars?

That's a not insignificant 14% of the total budget, by the way.

If you didn't need to spend $35 million dollars then why, for the love of Pete, would you ask for it?

And while you are thinking, consider this. Traditionally, the producer's fee is calculated as a percentage of the total budget of the film. Under this model, producer's essentially have a vested interest to see the budget go higher, to increase the size of the fee they receive, regardless of box office success.

Could this have been a factor?

We'll never know.

What we do know, is that the film production system has to adopt the technological change at hand and evolve to a more sustainable model. We are in the midst of that transitional period, and transition is always scary. The old guard are terrified by what they can't understand.

But once upon a time, films didn't have sound.

Epochs end. Is an end to the days of spending so much on a film that it has to do unrealistically well at the box office a tragedy?

No, it isn't. It simply means that films will need to be made using the latest technology. Smarter. Cheaper. Less wasteful.

It's not a bad thing. It's just an unknown, given our current level of understanding.

The unknown always leads to outlandish theories, to try and explain a shifting paradigm.

The Hollywood implosion is one of those myths.

How do I know?

http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/disney-first-studio-to-reach-1b-at-2013-domestic-box-office-despite-lone-ranger/

Despite 'The Lone Ranger', Disney just became the first Hollywood studio to surpass $1 billion in U.S. domestic box office returns this year.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

DON'T BE ERIC ROBERTS

Julia Roberts has a brother named Eric. If you were cognizant in the 80's, you already know that.

Eric, you see, is also an actor, like his younger sister.

In fact, believe it or not, at one stage Eric Roberts was set to be the next big thing.

A star.

And then, his Hollywood stock started to fall. Bad movie after bad movie followed. He baffled audiences and critics with his choices. How could he be Oscar-nominated for 'Runaway Train', and then star in a B-grade martial arts film, 'Best of the Best', just a few films later?

As it turns out, Roberts would answer this question himself:

"Up until the late '80s, I'd been so careful with my career that I only made a movie a year; sometimes every other year. But because of some bad investments, I was not a millionaire anymore. I decided the hell with it. So I started doing everything that was offered to me. I made a slew of B-movies, like 12 or 14, and some of them are pretty terrible."

So, out of financial desperation, and (from another interview) the crippling paranoia of never getting another job offer, Roberts took every role and brought about his own career downfall.

Roberts is not alone in facing these concerns. The feeling of choosing 'passion versus work' is one that we all face at some point in our lives. No matter your profession, we have also all had that moment where you wonder if the opportunity in front of you will be your last.

In that sense, everyone can take a lesson from Eric Roberts' cautionary tale.

Unfortunately, these two feelings are usually only associated with a project or opportunity that you are not really convinced about. Your intuition tells you that you want to pass on the offer, but the naysaying voice in your mind wonders aloud, 'but what if this is the last offer I get? My big break?'

While I would love to tell you differently, this is a paradox that is difficult to resolve.

It is true that the best projects to attach to are the ones where you can't imagine being uninvolved, but these sorts of projects only come along infrequently. And, while you sustain yourself with your adherence to these lofty principles, the truth is that there is also something to be said for staying active. Ultimately, it really depends on your circumstances and whether you are hardwired to play the game with a long term view in mind.

Personally, I won't work on anything that I can't envision being proud to talk about years later. As a producer, it is particularly important because you have to live with the film for FAR longer than everyone else.

But I have known others who prefer to stay active. Building skills by working on a plethora of smaller projects.

Both of these approaches are perfectly valid in their own right. The commonality, you see, is that both approaches are motivated by reasons very different to the melancholy tale of Eric Roberts. These two approaches are motivated by developing a career based on choices.

Mr Roberts was motivated by money and fear of being ignored.

But all is not lost. Roberts finally stopped jumping at every offer and started to make better choices. His biggest star turn was a well received role as a mob boss in the acclaimed Batman sequel, 'The Dark Knight'.

And that is the beauty of choice. It's never too late to correct your trajectory. It can start as simply with the next choice you face.

But wait. Just when the clouds were clearing, Roberts signed on to reality show, 'Celebrity Rehab'.

And, most recently, he has been announced to star in 'The Human Centipede 3'.

Oh dear.

Make good decisions.

Don't be Eric Roberts.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

I WANT TO WIN AN OSCAR!...?

So, you have just been nominated for an Oscar.

It is the symbol of excellence in filmmaking. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) Award.

This is the summit. The peak. The recognition of your hard work and sacrifice.

This is the goal you set yourself all those years ago. The litmus test that you have 'made it'.

You are honoured to be nominated and thrilled at the opportunity to win it.

Or are you?

"The whole thing is a goddamn meat parade. I don't want any part of it."

Such were the words of George C. Scott. Winner of the 1971 Academy Award for Best Actor.

Also, the first person to ever reject an Oscar.

Horrified?

I wouldn't be surprised if you were. This behaviour flies in the face of a lot of cultural norms today.

But in deifying the Academy Awards, as we have in modern times, have we overlooked a fairly basic truth?

By way of comparison, have you ever seen a poster for a film covered in tiny 'Official Selection, (insert Film Festival name here)' logos, like floral epaulettes?

The filmmakers place them there to add an impression of prestige to the film.

Keep in mind, however, that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of film festivals in the world. The end result is that, in the eye of the beholder, the 'Official Selection' logo ultimately reads a lot like this:




And this is the basic truth I was referring to: context matters.

If there were only one film festival in the world, an official selection logo would suddenly be meaningful. But alas, there are thousands. In the full context, the harsh truth, the 'Official Selection' logo looks pretty but is ultimately meaningless to the vast majority of observers.

And so it is with awards for artistic merit, like the Oscars: context matters.

Context, in fact, is even more vital for an Awards program because awards do not have intrinsic value. Awards derive their power and value from respect bestowed onto them, by both the giver and the receiver.

Unfortunately, in the case of the Oscars, there is a growing schism between these two groups.

The receivers still largely respect the awards as a symbol of excellence. Anyone who has watched a starlet melt into an emotional downpour on stage knows that holding that small golden erection means something deeply profound to a recipient.

But on the giving side?

To those that bestow the Oscar, is it still the symbol of excellence or a leverage of pure politics?

Recent events lead you to wonder.

Like the institution, by the Academy, of a new rule that means a documentary has to have been reviewed by the LA Times or The New York Times to qualify for an Oscar.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/new-academy-rule-only-docs-with-lat-or-nyt-reviews-qualify-for-oscars

The new rule is designed purely to reduce the number of films The Academy actually has to consider and judge for the Oscars. Is this behaviour respecting the idea of the Award being the pinnacle of the film achievement? Surely a great documentary is a great documentary, regardless of whether it has been reviewed by these two publications?

And therein lies the problem. When the givers of an Award have deliberately introduced a rule that could, conceivably, exclude legitimate contenders, they diminish the respect in which that Award is held.

Couple this example with the controversy around Academy Members speaking out against 'Zero Dark Thirty', suggesting it endorses CIA torture, and you get a picture of an accolade that has become more political platform than altruistic reward for excellence.

So, what does this all mean?

It's simple really.

Don't chase the accolades. Don't use an award, even one as glamorous as an Oscar, as the symbolic end goal for your success.

Enjoy the work because the privilege of making a living telling stories, that an audience responds to, should be reward enough.

And if it's not, for the love of god, do something else for a living. There are far easier ways to make money and garner respect.

Leave this one for the raconteurs.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html