DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS

Australians pay 30% to 70% more on iTunes than Americans do for the same content.

But that's not the secret. Anyone with a computer can find that out.

The dirty little secret was actually revealed by the man in charge of Apple Australia, Tony King.

At an inquiry in Australian Parliament on the pricing of Microsoft, Adobe and Apple products in Australia, Mr King revealed:

"The pricing of this digital content is based on the wholesale prices which are set through negotiated contracts with the record labels, movie studios and TV networks".

"In Australia, they have often set a higher wholesale price than the price of similar content in the United States."

"(In the digital age) the content industry still runs with perhaps old-fashioned notions of country borders or territories or markets. (This) creates confusion for customers"

He went on to say that Apple had pushed for lower Australian pricing with content owners, to no avail. 

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/evasive-microsoft-adobe-fail-to-justify-prices-20130322-2gjkr.html

Now, to people within the film and music industries in Australia, the above is not new information.

To the Australian public, however, this is a revelation.

You see, it is really easy for the general public to blame Apple for the price differential between geographic regions.

Apple are the flashy, know-it-all, hipster face of tech and content distribution.

Apple was also the first-mover, from the established players (I'm ignoring Napster and P2P file-sharing services at this point), to create a usable online content store for legal downloading.

In that sense, Apple is the well-dressed, smarmy guy/girl in the room, who loves to tell you about their success. When these kinds of people miss-step, the world loves bringing them down a peg.

And so it is with Apple. Schadenfreude of the highest order.

The real culprits for the price differential between geographic regions, of course, stay silent.

Why get in the way of a public grilling that should be directed their way?

But Apple know they are not to blame. And now they want you to know too.

According to Apple, it is the MAJOR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS, like the big Hollywood Film Studios, who are making you pay higher prices.

The little independent filmmakers are not to blame. They don't have the negotiating power to cause such a differential.

From my perspective, however, Apple is only half right.

The problem is actually bigger.

You see, price differentials for movies don't just happen in the online world, like iTunes, but also in the physical world of cinemas as well.

In Australia, the viewing public are shaken down for every last cent at both the cinema and in the online content stores.

There are two bandits in this enterprise. THE EXHIBITORS (i.e. cinemas) and the MAJOR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS (i.e. Hollywood Studios).

The exhibitors empty your left pocket at the cinema, and the major copyright holders empty your right pocket when you try and purchase a film later on DVD or online.

What has Australia done to deserve this treatment?

Nothing.

This issue is all about the big, well-established players in the film industry, the titans, wanting to make as much money as possible.

I have actually written about the exhibitor side of this problem before and, from the looks of things, little has changed.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/exhibitors.html

Exhibitors continue to enforce outdated geographic restrictions on film releases internationally. The Quentin Tarantino helmed 'Django Unchained', for example, was being discussed ad nauseum for months in America, when it hadn't even been released in Australia.

There used to be a good reason for this difference in release dates worldwide. Once upon a time, a film was geographically restricted because it only had so many copies to screen in cinemas. Once all the copies ('prints') were finished being used in America, they were shipped to Europe, then Asia, and so on.

Today, the film can be sent as a high-resolution digital file to screen immediately, all over the world. There is no real point to geographical release restrictions anymore.

Except...

...to maintain a false scarcity of the film and keep ticket prices artificially high, fleecing the audiences for their money.

Then, once the film has finished in the cinemas, the Major Copyright Holders continue to maintain outdated, higher 'non-theatrical format' prices (i.e. DVD and online prices) for the film in different regions. There used to be a good reason for this too. Shipping VHS tapes and DVDs to far away locations, like Australia, was expensive. The cost of the additional shipping and handling was therefore passed on to consumers.

Today, the film can be downloaded from online stores, instantly, with no shipping costs, no physical product and no logistical overheads (aside from the computer infrastructure, e.g. the hardware, software and labour that Apple use to maintain the iTunes store). There is no real point to price differentials between regions anymore either.

Except...

...to maintain a false 'price floor', and therefore keep prices artificially high, fleecing the audiences for their money.

And they wonder why people are not 'morally' challenged by pirating films? The audiences have been mugged for so long, they feel no moral obligation to put money into the pocket of the bandits.

And sadly, I can't blame them.

But the biggest players in the film industry don't seem to care.

Even if it means encouraging every last person to pirate, they will squeeze every last dollar out of audiences while they can.

Why?

Because they are big public companies with shareholders.

Because the people currently in charge of these film industry titans know they won't be around when the whole thing comes crashing down.

They will have cashed in their chips long before we have to clean up their mess.

And that, my friends, is the dirtiest little secret of them all.

- - - - - - - - -
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

VERONICA MARS AND THE MILLION DOLLAR EXPERIMENT

It seems like every other day someone is announcing a new 'world changing' event.

Maybe we have become too cynical. Overexposed to media hype, our attention can only be drawn by announcements of the extreme.

Hype, in a way, has become a self-sustaining cycle.

But occasionally the exposure is warranted. An event is truly paradigm shifting.

Six years ago, a paradigm shifting event had its genesis. It was May 2007, and the last episode of a TV show, 'Veronica Mars', aired in the USA.

Their audience was devastated, despite the fact it had run for only three seasons. When TV audiences fall, they fall hard.

The executive producer, Rob Thomas, never gave up on the concept, despite the cancellation. In optimistic defiance he wrote a feature film script set in the world of Veronica Mars.

And then, nothing.

Warner Brothers, the studio who owned the show, turned down the film version.

Rumours of the show's return whirled, circled, settled and disappeared.

Slowly 'Veronica Mars' disappeared over the horizon. A DVD back-catalogue item.

But not for Rob Thomas.

Years passed.

Nothing.

Then suddenly, a new seed of hope.

Crowdfunding appeared. A direct connection with your audience, who then donate to your film project, up-front, to get it made.

Rob Thomas approached Warner Brothers. Would they let him use the 'Veronica Mars' story, which they owned, if he could crowdfund enough for a movie?

Sure, was Warner Brothers' reply, just raise 2 million dollars and it's yours.

So Rob Thomas listed the film on the crowdfunding website Kickstarter. The crowdfunding campaign had 30 days to raise $2 Million from their fan donations.

And here is where this event earned its hype. The paradigm shift is real.

The 'Veronica Mars' crowdfunding campaign raised the first million in 11 hours.

Within one day, the film had raised the required two million.

At the time of writing this, the campaign has raised $3.5 Million.

It set a crowdfunding speed record for the fastest project to break $1 Million.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-mars-movie-project

Incredible.

This week, therefore, crowdfunding for film hit puberty. From here there will be growth, pain, angst and opportunity.

The angst has already started. Industry-shifting events always generate debate.

On one side are the independent filmmakers, who with consternation decry the 'Veronica Mars' crowdunding campaign as a travesty.

Crowdfunding, they say, was supposed to be for independent artists to connect with audiences and thus receive the backing to make their art. They see 'Veronica Mars' as a takeover of crowdfunding by studios that already control the majority of the pie.

On the other side are the industry pundits and futurists, saying that 'Veronica Mars' has rung in the beginning of a beautiful new world for film.

This new world is one where audiences and artists/creators are in synch, with a symbiotic relationship of support and artistic creation. This new world, they say, should not discriminate on the scale of the artist, be they studio or independent filmmaker. Everyone should get to play.

Interestingly, both of these viewpoints have an in-built assumption that I am not sure I agree with.

The assumption is that the 'Veronica Mars' crowdfunding experiment was a success.

Certainly the campaign was a success. They raised a huge amount of money, well beyond the $2 Million target. Previously, this sort of success was reserved for music projects using crowdfunding, like Amanda Palmer.

Movies, however, are not like music projects. Music projects, during their creation, scale in ways very unlike films.

Music, while still expensive at the most produced end of the spectrum, can still be made within a reasonable cost niche. By contrast, and despite technological improvements, the resources needed to make AND RELEASE films are still enormous. Hopefully this will change, but it is the reality that filmmakers face today.

So, in the present paradigm, films still need to be a profit-making exercise to pay for the on-costs that music doesn't have, especially around a theatrical release.

And it is with this in mind that I question the assumption that the 'Veronica Mars' campaign is a success.

Why?

Because who is their untapped audience now?

Where will they make the profit they need, to pay for film related on-costs, if they have already drained the dollars from their supporter base?

Will their base feel exploited if asked to pay for the film at the cinema too?

Maybe I am wrong, and their audience, loyal to the end, will show up in droves.

But I'm not sure.

I'm not sure if, ultimately, the 'Veronica Mars' crowdfunding experiment will be a success.

I'm not sure if crowdfunding is built for these sorts of mass projects. They might be bleeding the well dry up front.

The world may have changed, but how much?

Time will tell.

- - - - - - - - -
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 CAN PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND SO SHOULD YOU!

Filmmakers everywhere should be doing the 'President Obama'.

No, it's not a new viral dance craze.

But it is revolutionary.

And it all starts with one man.

But it's not the President.

What if I told you that the driving force behind President Obama's successful 2012 reelection campaign was another man lurking behind the scenes?

It sounds like a movie plot conspiracy.

A super genius.

A man who assembled a team of fellow geniuses and built a sophisticated computer system to win the election.

A Bond film perhaps?

This may all sound far fetched, but it is absolutely true.

And he even has a name. Not a silly code number or pseudonym.

Harper Reed delivered President Obama reelection.

But more important than who he is, is how he did it.

Filmmakers should be paying attention.

He built a system to track voter, and potential voter, data. Simple yet extraordinarily powerful.

Harper Reed and his team could then track, down to the individual, who their army of Obama Campaign volunteers (the 'door knockers', as they are imaginatively called) had contacted and how engaged the potential voters were with President Obama's re-election efforts.

Now this may not sound sexy to people in the film business traditionally, but it is indeed revolutionary.

Why?

Imagine if, before you have even finished your script, you could be sure that it had an audience. What would that be worth to you?

If you're a filmmaker and the answer isn't 'priceless', you should change careers. Now.

Imagine if a movie studio could be sure that its new $100M fantasy sci-fi epic had all the elements that would attract a big audience and loads of ticket sales.

This is the power of data.

Data is the new world currency. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

The President knew it. And now he is the President again.

But why aren't we doing this as filmmakers? Our livelihood is actually certain to benefit from this kind of audience data revolution, more so than the political sphere.

And yet, in a bizzare irony, it is a POLITICIAN leading the way. How odd.

To help get you up to speed on this new world of data, I present to you this excellent article on the President's data team, including Harper Reed. It is a must read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-the-nerds-go-marching-in/265325/1/

If you are lazy, however, the part you must know is:

With Davidsen's help, the Analytics team built a tool they called The Optimizer, which allowed the campaign to buy eyeballs on television more cheaply. They took set-top box (that is to say, your cable or satellite box or DVR) data from Davidsen's old startup, Navik Networks, and correlated it with the campaign's own data. This occurred through a third party called Epsilon: the campaign sent its voter file and the television provider sent their billing file and boom, a list came back of people who had done certain things like, for example, watched the first presidential debate. Having that data allowed the campaign to buy ads that they knew would get in front of the most of their people at the least cost. They didn't have to buy the traditional stuff like the local news, either. Instead, they could run ads targeted to specific types of voters during reruns or off-peak hours.

According to CMAG/Kantar, the Obama's campaign's cost per ad was lower ($594) than the Romney campaign ($666) or any other major buyer in the campaign cycle. That difference may not sound impressive, but the Obama campaign itself aired more than 550 thousand ads. And it wasn't just about cost, either. They could see that some households were only watching a couple hours of TV a day and might be willing to spend more to get in front of those harder-to-reach people.

Incredible.

Keep in mind though, knowing the size of your audience is not a new idea. For example, there is a famous (though questionably accurate) story about filmmaker Kevin Smith and the release of one of his films by the film moguls, the Weinsteins. For the unaware, Kevin Smith is famous for his films 'Clerks', 'Mallrats' and 'Dogma', as well as his extensive public speaking and comic book writing.

As the story goes, Mr Smith advised the Weinsteins not to spend a large amount on releasing his film, because he wanted the production budget and the distribution budget to add up to a certain maximum amount.

For the purposes of this story, we'll call this total amount 'X'.

Smith claimed that the audience he had cultivated over the years amounted to a certain regular amount of box office return, equal to at least 'X'. These people, Smith said, would always buy tickets because they were 'Kevin Smith' fans.

Let's call this number of guaranteed fans 'F'.

So, including the production budget, as long as the Weinstein's spent no more than 'X' releasing the film, they wouldn't lose money.

According to the story, however, the Weinstein's ignored Smith's advice and, in the short run at least, they lost money on the film.

So what is the moral of the tale?

Even if it's not true, this story is informative conceptually. The guesstimation of audience size by Mr Smith in the story, however, has now become antiquated by the new world of data.

In the future, you won't have to guess. Data is how you will know, for your film project, what your 'F' is.

'F' will be a powerful number. It will drive constraints like the amount of investment money you will be able to raise to make your film, and therefore help you determine your 'X'.

But 'F' will also bring opportunity. It will inform how much more you need to do, to raise awareness about your film. It will guide your focus for engaging audiences, and potential audiences.

In short, knowing 'F' will help you build your audience, and your career, as Kevin Smith has.

And the data revolution has already begun. From the documentary makers who have used targeted online advertising of their film to track the 'click-throughs':

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/business/media/finding-a-documentary-audience-for-a-cause.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&

...to Netflix creating their new original show, 'House of Cards' using Netflix viewer data to show who to cast (Kevin Spacey), who to select as Director (David Fincher), and even what kind of show to make (a remake of the original BBC TV Series):

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers_into_puppets/

As with anything new there are concerns. In particular, there is worry that too much data-driven decision making will lead to formulaic films and TV shows being made.

I don't agree.

Formulaic content was already being made, long before there was ever the faintest notion of a data revolution.

All the data does is tell you what audience exists. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You will still have to make creative decisions, to engage with this audience. Perhaps though, the data will give you pause to scale your budget to the available audience.

So, no more bankrupting studios with $100M films, that have no audience to watch them.

This can only lead to better decisions on the business side of filmmaking, which is traditionally our weakest area. We are creatives after all.

And for you, the time has come to embrace the data revolution.

Use the data to work out your 'F' and then work to engage and grow your audience.

President Obama knew it was important enough to invest in, and he only wanted four more years.

This is your entire film career. How much more important should it be for 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

ACQUIRING SUPERPOWERS

We live in remarkable, revolutionary times. If you pay attention long enough, you realise it really is an amazing epoch to be alive in, on this small clump of dirt we call Earth.

Everything on Earth is evolving in some way. Notions of gender, marriage, sexuality, technology, economics, power, politics are all changing.

Remember when we just accepted everything as it was, purely for the reason 'because'?

Those days are over. In the developed world, everything is evolving though a post-modern maze. We need real answers. So, for the first time in generations, we have had to go back to the script and work out why things have been written the way they are.

The best example of this navel gazing is in education.

Remember when you went to school, because that was just what you had to do?

Even that is changing. There is now an education debate going on, worldwide, that you should be paying attention to.

People are asking, what is the real point of education? What should we be teaching our youth to be ready for the future? What should we be learning, as adults, to prepare ourselves for the challenges to come?

Tough questions, going to the foundation of education's very existence.

First, you have to know where education started. The education system was originally designed to produce more compliant and effective factory workers in the manufacturing industry, particularly for the big factories of the UK, Europe and America. It was not a philanthropic gesture.

Don't believe me? Start here and keep googling:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/09/back-to-the-wrong-school.html

But something has changed fundamentally in the developed world, since that inception. The manufacturing jobs that built the current status quo are disappearing to developing countries, to chase lower wages and higher profit margins.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/07/09/11898/5-facts-about-overseas-outsourcing/

So, we now have an education system producing people hard-wired for a societal construct that no longer exists.

Can this lead to anything but misery?

Yes, it can lead to something better.

I remember learning to read and write. It was so incredible that it felt surreal. To be able to hear these words in my head and articulate them into thoughts and stories.

It was like a superpower. It still is.

But now, we need a new superpower. Luckily, this superpower that can be acquired.

We need to learn how to code. All of us.

Some of us will be better at it than others. Not all of us will make a career out of it.

But EVERYONE needs to learn it.

Software is now a driving force behind everything. Where once a person had a job keeping a spreadsheet tracking deliveries, now there is a program that can do it automatically.

This is the future, and it will affect every industry.

Film and content creators, I am talking particularly to you. The tools to distribute and promote your content will increasingly involve software.

It's happening already. There are now dedicated iphone Apps just for content from specific films. As this area grows, you will have to be able to at least understand what the programmers building websites (or any other software) for you are talking about.

But this is about more than that. This is about understanding the zeitgeist. It's about understanding how people think, so that you have a better ability to empathise and appeal to them as an audience for your films and stories.

If you don't understand what is driving the culture, how can you be a part of it as a storyteller?

If you don't even have a basic awareness of how coding works, you are being left behind. And that applies to everyone, whether you are a filmmaker or not.

Have you ever seen a senior citizen struggle to complete a simple task on a computer?

How will you feel talking to an eight year old that knows more about technology than you do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc&feature=youtu.be

The evolution of society in the developed world, and the need for new superpowers, has already begun.

Are you preparing for 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

CREDIBILITY FOR SALE: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF CINEMA AND TELEVISION ARTS (AACTA)

Dear AACTA,

Why are we Australians so quick to sell ourselves to the highest bidder?

Apologies, before diving into my diatribe, I should provide you with some context.

I was reading through some older emails I had de-prioritised recently.

We all do it. Time is a commodity more precious than platinum, for everyone, these days. You skim read and answer the most urgent, while leaving the rest for that unicorn-like spare minute.

Pegasus had arrived for me this particular day, so I was finally getting to some older communications.

One in particular caught my attention. It was a communique' from you, The Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts (AACTA), regarding the future of the AACTA Awards.

I noted a number of positive ideas about a sustainable model for the AACTA Awards. Well done, it should be a pillar of our industry for years to come.

I also noted, however, that you are in search of a 'naming rights' sponsor for the AACTA Awards again.

I sighed internally.

This year, AACTA, you took a quantum leap forward in the level of esteem with which the Awards are held. It was a very impressive event, with famous attendees, healthy TV numbers and excellent media coverage.

Bravo.

That being said, once you have established credibility for your work, tangible credibility, you should protect it. Credibility is one of the few things you have a chance to preserve, purely by maintaining the integrity of your work.

Would you respect the 'Tena Lady' BAFTA Awards?

I understand there are economics involved, but the AACTA Awards have literally JUST established themselves as a credible and prestigious event.

I am an AACTA member, I was an attendee at the 2013 Awards, and I saw the news coverage. It was something to be proud of.

This was a vast improvement to the 2012 'Samsung' AACTA Awards. I can't even type that without reacting to the blatant commerciality of having a sponsor's name in the title.

And it is worth noting at this point that Australians, in particular, have a strong distaste of feeling 'sold to'.

This year, without the burden of a naming rights sponsor you were simply 'The AACTA Awards'.

Elegant.

Prestigious.

Kind of like the BAFTA's or, heaven forbid, The Oscars.

You cannot buy that kind of esteem. It makes the whole enterprise something people want to be a part of.

And once you have sold this earned esteem, like selling your soul for a dollar, you cannot buy it back.

So, dearest AACTA, I implore you.

Please find another way to make the AACTA's work, without selling your name to the highest bidder.

Couldn't categories of sponsorship work, with a lower barrier entry level for smaller sponsors? Less comp tickets, perhaps only for nominees? Lose the Awards luncheon and have all the Awards in one event at the Awards evening, to save venue costs?

There must be a way. For the good of the Australian industry for years to come, there has to be.

Some things should be worth more than money.

Sincerely,

Pete Ireland
Opening Act Films

- - - - - - - - -
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

WASTE NOT

"You see cars driving in New York all hours of the night. It's like Musical Chairs except everybody sat down around 1964. The problem is car manufacturers are building hundreds of thousands of new cars every year, they're not making any new spaces. That's what they should be working on. Wouldn't that be great? You go to the Auto Show, they got that big revolving turntable, and there's nothing on it. New from Chrysler, a space."
                                                                    - JERRY SEINFELD


We are all connected.

If we didn't know it before, social networking and 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' have made it abundantly clear.

Being connected yields amazing and wonderful things. Art, a rise in social consciousness and economic opportunities we never thought of.

But it also comes with responsibility. If we are all 'in this together', then our ability to thrive depends very much on understanding and improving the negative impacts we have on others.

Something the film and content industries don't talk much about is sustainability. There have been film productions in recent years certified as being 'best practice in their environmental footprint', but generally the effort of being green is given up for economic rationality.

This is a mistake.

Being sustainable is a new idea in it's large scale form. The concept had been around for years, but only recently has it entered the global vernacular.

New ideas always seem too hard or too expensive. They give way to arguments of 'but we have always done it this way', or 'but that will eat into our profit margin'.

Being sustainable, however, is more than just a green ideal. In a connected world, showing that you are an industry that cares about the world you are operating in, and indeed the audience you are trying to connect with, is actually good for business too.

Being certified green has become a standard that companies use to differentiate their brand from the others. This only happens because people respond, with their hard-earned money, to these companies being positive contributors to the world we live in.

It is with great hope then that I read recently about a sustainability idea for televisions and computers, the portals of the content our industry produces.

The idea? Television and computer recycling.

“Hazardous materials including lead, mercury and zinc will be prevented from entering the environment through landfill, and valuable non-renewable resources - including gold and other precious metals - will be saved for re-use.”

http://recyclingnearyou.com.au/ewastescheme/

This is a big deal.

Think of the environmental footprint reduction of the content industries from this wonderful new development. Precious minerals re-used instead of becoming landfill. Environmentally hazardous materials disposed of responsibly.

For you money counters out there, however, there are also obvious tangible economics to this. A new market comes from the second-hand non-renewable minerals (gold from your televisions, for example). These minerals can be stripped out and sold. This is the obvious benefit.

The less tangible, but just as relevant, economic benefit relates to the Jerry Seinfeld quote above. Just like buying a new car, part of the economic decision people make, on whether to upgrade their television or computer, is based in-part on the guilt of being wasteful.

Budget is certainly one part of the decision. Wastefulness, or even the perception of it, is a part of the decision making process as well.

Even if the film and content industries, including the technology providers, haven't seriously cared about the environment all this time, therefore, the audiences have.

With a new paradigm, where people know that they can purchase a new television or computer without the guilt of the old one being 'wasted', audiences will be more likely to purchase new equipment. As a result, and despite any associated costs with being 'green', this sustainable model is better for the technology providers, not worse.

In the long run, sustainability-led increases in television and computer upgrading are better for the film and content makers too. Newer versions of technology have newer features, usually ones that make it easier to deliver the content that people want; improving the audience experience. Netflix App anyone?

So, in the new world of environmentally sustainable economics, audiences win.

Technology makers win.

Film and content makers win.

The environment wins.

Who wants to keep doing this the old way?

- - - - - - - - -
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 FILMS NEWS - 'Part One: Love' selected for the Byron Bay International Film Festival and The Melbourne Queer Film Festival!

                             

  

Great news seems to come in pairs.

Our documentary, 'Part One: Love' has been selected to screen in the Australian Academy (AACTA) accredited Byron Bay International Film Festival, and the 23rd Melbourne Queer Film Festival.

We are very excited to be selected for both of these wonderful and prestigious festivals! 

The Melbourne Queer Film Festival (MQFF) is the oldest queer film festival in Australia, and one of the oldest queer film festivals in the world. It is the largest queer film festival in the Southern Hemisphere, as well as being the second largest film festival in Victoria.

'Part One: Love' is screening at the MQFF on the evening of Monday 18th March.

http://www.mqff.com.au/

The AACTA accredited Byron Bay International Film Festival (BBFF) celebrates its seventh year in 2013. The festival continues to grow, this year screening over 200 films from more than 30 countries with a program comprised of feature films, documentaries, animation and short films that support and celebrate local and international cinema.

'Part One: Love' is screening at the BBFF on the evening of Wednesday 6th March.

http://www.bbff.com.au/category/bbff2013

Our very own Pete Ireland will be attending both festivals to present the film, and there are plenty of other wonderful films to see at both festivals. 

Make sure you get along to see the amazing films they have on offer.

A GOOD START TO 2013: CUT YOURSELF SOME SLACK

And just like that, it's already February.

It's scary how quickly the time passes sometimes. We all try and deal with this fact in our own way.

Some people try and rationalise it. Others go for the irrational, the 'live every day like it's your last' idea.

That's all well and good, but everyone has to wash their underpants eventually. It can't all be skydiving and adrenalin.

In this world of seemingly increasing pace, the start to the year therefore tends to be the time that attempted inspiration is in oversupply.

Recently, I was reading an interview from a screenwriter who felt compelled to mention the 'every minute counts' idea in almost every answer. I give the screenwriter his due for attempting to inspire people, but I am starting to believe this mantra is increasingly misguided.

So, rather than complain about it, I decided it was time to provide a possible alternative idea, for those in need of inspiration, to adopt. This can be your mantra for 2013, if it works for you:

CUT YOURSELF SOME SLACK.

Yes, I know we should all be bungie-sky-kite-surfing, while eating nutritious supplements and working in our dream careers, because life really is what you make of it. HOWEVER, the 'every minute counts' slogan has actually turned counter productive, for a very good reason:

The guilt trip of not embracing today is less important than the sum of good work in the long run.

Do you have any notion of how much brain power it takes to support a person counting the seconds tick away, and worse, to worry incessantly about it?

This brain power would be much better spent on whatever it is you are passionate about. Work, cooking, family, or film.

Does feeling guilty about not spending every single millisecond on your dream project actually yield any positive results?

The answer, of course, is no.

And worse, the guilt can spawn negative behaviours, like working extreme hours to feel a perception of progress. Often, spending two or three intense hours on a project can yield more quality work output than spending copious 'unfocussed' hours.

But you ignore the impulse to stop for the day and get some rest, even though that would lead to better work overall. Why?

Because you have been told that 'every minute counts'. Until now.

CUT YOURSELF SOME SLACK. The guilt trip of not embracing today is less important than the sum of good work in the long run.

To get you started, I will show you how it's done.

I have a day job. There, I said it. In film and creative circles, this tends to be a source of shame. Others try and make you feel bad about it because you are not a 'true professional', earning your living off of your creative work. So today, instead, I am officially embracing it. Even though it means that I have to spend time away from working on my film projects. I am blessed to be able to live, eat, pay my rent and make films on the way to a sustainable career in film. What an amazing thing that I can be allowed to do that, when so many in the world have nothing.

So, I am officially cutting myself some slack. I won't feel shame or embarrassment for it anymore.

Besides, this need to have other revenue sources, while a film is being put together properly, is starting to permeate even Hollywood:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/new-hollywood-producers-struggle-adjust-life-studio-lot-67471

And as for you, stop berating yourself if you don't get everything done in a day.

Know that your career is only over the day you stop creating and working on your craft. Whether it takes you ten years to write that great script or 10 weeks, your process is yours to own.

Just make it great, and the outcome will justify the means.

But in the mean time, cut yourself some slack. You'll be happier and your work will be better for 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

OA FILMS NEWS - Opening Act Films at The Australian Academy Awards

                              

Pete Ireland, the Opening Act Films founder, and his colleague from RunTime Pictures, Tony Radevski, attended the 2013 Australian Academy Awards (The AACTA's). Here are a few shots we took in the midst of talking, applauding the winners (and nominees) drinking and after-partying.

                                          

   

MERRY XMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!! (PLUS SOME GIFTS AND A LITTLE ADVICE FROM WOODY ALLEN)

Happy holidays!!

I hope you had a wonderful Xmas day with friends and loved ones.

Playing my part, there are some Xmas gifts for you sprinkled throughout this newsletter, but you'll have to keep reading to find them.

I also want to take the chance to wish you a happy and safe start to the new year.

Getting a running start to the new year is something many people aspire to and few succeed in. Too many hangovers and social gatherings.

But I thought, for the last Opening Act Films Newsletter of 2012, I could share something that might help you get inspired for a big start to 2013.

It comes straight from the mouth of Woody Allen, and a little of my own experience.

You see, I have been to a few festivals with my films and I can honestly tell you there is one immutable truth:

All that matters is the work.

I know some of you think that networking is the key. I know some of you think that, if you could just meet Oscar winners like Emile Sherman (Producer of 'The King's Speech') that your career would be on the fast track.

I have met Emile Sherman. He's lovely.

But meeting him briefly has had NO impact on my career whatsoever.

That doesn't disappoint me. That is the way it should be.

The great filmmakers became household names, not because of who they knew, but because their work amazed audiences to the point that they wanted to know who created this art. Contacts help, but talent shines through.

What would you even say to Steven Spielberg if you got into a conversation?

"Hi, I have an idea for a script that I wrote down on a napkin and have not bothered to develop or even write a script for. Can you please give me a career?"

But what if you met Mr Spielberg after an acclaimed screening of your first low budget feature film at the Sundance Film Festival? How much better would the conversation be then?

Your work speaks for itself.

But don't just take my word for it.

One of the modern auteurs, Woody Allen, says the same thing.

http://blog.talenthouse.com/2012/07/26/woody-allen-advises-aspiring-filmmakers-to-keep-doing-your-own-thing/

'Unlike other Hollywood patrons, Allen does not claim to know the secret to filmmaking success, instead his main advice is, “it’s only the work that counts."'

The wonderful part of all of this, for you, is that the tools to make a film, or even just be generally creative, are at your disposal right now.

Basic writing/screenwriting tools are free.

Gift 1 (GOLD) = CeltX Free creative writing/screenwriting tool = www.celtx.com

If you are worried that you do not have the skills or knowledge to get started, there are educational books on your creative interest, e.g. screenwriting, available free in most public libraries.

There are also free university courses online, e.g. a Stanford University Course on creativity.

Gift 2 (MYRRH) = Free online university courses website = https://www.coursera.org/

So, that covers your knowledge and the script to get started, but what about all that expensive equipment you need to actually shoot and edit the film?

Would you believe me if I told you can shoot and edit the film with what you have right now?

Smartphone cameras have now reached a standard that they can be used to shoot high quality video, with amazing results. Read this iphone 4s camera review for proof:

http://techland.time.com/2011/10/17/review-of-the-apple-iphone-4s-camera/

There is also a free video editing program, 'Lightworks', that has been used on major Hollywood films and that you can download for yourself.

Gift 3 (FRANKINCENSE) = Lightworks free video editing software = http://www.lwks.com/

So, now you have film knowledge, a script, camera and editing software.

All that is left is for you to get started.

What are you waiting for?

2013 could be your biggest year yet. It's up to you.

All that matters is the work.

Happy 2013.
________________________________________

PS: AS USUAL, 'TALES FROM THE OPENING ACT' WILL BE GOING ON HOLIDAYS FOR ALL OF JANUARY 2013. BUT DON'T WORRY, IT WILL BE BACK, BETTER AND MORE PUNCTUAL THAN EVER, IN FEBRUARY 2013. HAVE A SAFE AND RESTFUL HOLIDAY SEASON!!!!! CHEERIO, PETE

- - - - - - - - -
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

OAFILMS NEWS - 'Part One: Love' goes international and is selected for a major film festival in Melbourne!

Since our very well received screening at The Antenna Documentary Festival in October 2012 (http://antennafestival.org/), 'Part One: Love' has been selected for 3 more excellent film festivals, including its international debut. Given the subject of the film is particularly relevant to the Gay and Lesbian (LGBT) Community, it has been wonderful to see it also embraced by both LGBT and non-LGBT audiences alike.

After the Antenna screening, we quickly rolled into a November festival selection and screening in the Sandfly Film Festival (http://www.sandflyfilmfestival.com/). Our producer, Pete Ireland, attended the Sandfly Festival gala night in Jervis Bay and can testify to the wonderful audience reaction to the film.

The film also had its first international selection in November, as one of 5 finalists in the Holebi Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Belgium (http://www.holebifilmfestival.be/short/). Unfortunately, we could not attend, nor did we win the major prize, however the festival Director, Maarten, sent us an email saying: 'I think the film was received well by our audience, and many were touched by the honest testimonials.' Hopefully this is just the start of the film's international journey.

Since then, we have received word that the film has been selected for the 23rd Melbourne Queer Film Festival (http://www.mqff.com.au) in March. This is really terrific news because MQFF is the largest queer film festival in the Southern Hemisphere, as well as being the second largest film festival in Victoria. In its 23rd edition, it is also one of the oldest queer film festivals in the world. The festival is in Melbourne from 14 - 25 March, 2013. Perhaps we will see you there.

For more news on 'Part One: Love' and our other films, keep in touch via the Opening Act Films Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/OpeningActFilms and the Opening Act Films website www.openingactfilms.com

Happy 2013!

THE 2013 REVIEW

Last year, I noticed that columnists and pundits in December started reviewing the year that was rather than thinking about what was ahead.

I thought this was an exercise in futility. Like being the person you saw a film with, who then quotes the film back to you like you haven't seen it.

In response, I reviewed 2012 instead. That was in December 2011.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/2012-review.html

Now, before we start on 2013, how close was I with the 2012 review?

I'm not going to tell you. That would make me a hypocrite.

I do have all the answers and research on how close I was with my 2012 predictions, but I'll only share them if enough readers ask for it in the mailbag. (P.S. You can subscribe to the direct email version of this newsletter at www.openingactfilms.com/contactus Only subscribers receive the coveted 'Tales From the Opening Act' Mailbag)

So, now that we have survived the Mayan calendar scare, what can we expect in 2013?

2013 will be the year where big problems are solved...or...they won't be.

If no solutions are found, these big problems will turn into bigger problems.

I am, of course, referring to the US 'Fiscal Cliff'. Watch this space, because if the Americans can't get something sorted out, they will face huge automatic government spending cuts that will ripple throughout the world economy. Everyone, including the slowly recovering film industry (particularly the acquisition and film financing side), will feel the impact.

Luckily, or unluckily depending on your world view, this can be solved via political negotiations within the US. Hold your breath.

2013 will also be the year where the technology for online video streaming improves. There have been many reported problems with the quality/usability of the online streaming platforms, with customers 'switching off' if the platforms are not intuitive and reliable. This problem will be fixed in 2013, mostly as a result of the need for survival by the stronger platforms, given that more and more competitors are entering the market (e.g. Amazon and HBO). This can only be a good thing for consumers.

As a result, more of you will buy your music and movies online. I know some of you will shake your head at this, but the global data, showing big increases in online content purchasing, doesn't lie. For a quickly growing number of people, onlinepurchased content is the highest quality, safest and easiest way to get your movies, TV shows and music.

http://www.businessinsider.com/future-of-digital-slides-2012-11?op=1

On that note, watch the online video wars really heat up in 2013. The battle for your hearts, minds and eyeballs is coming. Netflix, the American video streaming provider is expanding worldwide and even commissioning a new series of the hit show 'Arrested Development' so that it has exclusive rights to show it. But rest assured, the other big hitters (Disney, Apple, Amazon, HBO) all want a piece of their pie. The counter-strike will come, which again is only good news for consumers, who love content at a reasonable price.

Most surprisingly, 2013 could really be, and I can't believe I am saying this after watching 'Daredevil', the year that Ben Affleck wins his SECOND Oscar. It will be as a director, not an actor however, for his film 'Argo'.

While the hot favourites, if there is 5 nominations for Best Picture, are: 'Lincoln', 'Zero Dark Thirty', 'Argo', 'Les Miserables' and 'Silver Linings Playbook'; I think 'Life of Pi' will squeak in and pip 'Argo' for the Oscar.

As far as the biggest grossing film of 2013, it will be tough to predict given the number of franchises releasing new installments. 'The Hobbit 2: Desolation of Smaug', 'The Hunger Games 2: Catching Fire', 'Iron Man 3', 'The Wolverine' and 'Thor 2: The Dark Worlds' are all being released in 2013. Based on two very good trailers, the big surprise could be 'The Man of Steel', the Superman reboot. If I had to bet at this stage, however, I would give it to the 'Hobbit 2', based on the size of their in-built audience and the record box office returns on the first installment this year.

I could go into the suggested declining relevance of film and the Oscars at this point, but I will save that for a later date, because I am not convinced. Save to say, a major debate in 2013 will be the fact that films deemed as 'successful' are drawing roughly 10% of the audience size of single episodes of major television shows like 'Breaking Bad'.

And then of course there is China. The worst kept secret in the world.

China is very near to an awakening of their middle class to mass consumer culture and content providers worldwide are literally drooling at the possibilities to sell movies to the Chinese. Watch for 2013 to be the first year of consistently large box office returns from China, flowing from the 2012 quota increase in foreign films allowed to be shown there.

In Australia, the National Broadband Network (NBN) will start to switch on in urban areas, finally delivering internet speeds that the Swedish have enjoyed for the last decade. Better late than never, I guess.

The NBN poses a paradox of enormous risks and possibilities for the Australian film industry. If we are not ready in 2013 with ways to deliver reasonably priced content to our audience, then they will turn to piracy and the NBN's high internet speeds will make that easier than ever. In that sense, 2013 will be an enormously important year to make sure that people form the habit of purchasing their content, rather than the tendency to steal it.

On the Australian awards circuit, look to 'The Sapphires' to sweep the Australian Academy awards in January. I'll be there, so I may be able to celebrate or eat my words in person.

So, what does this interesting and complicated picture of 2013 mean to you, exactly?

First, for everyone, it means this will be a tumultuous year. So question everything, even this newsletter.

The landscape has shifted so much, that there are less and less gurus in the world. That doesn't mean that there is less information and fact, however, so there is no excuse for you to be uninformed and have your opinion led by the whim of others.

We live in an information age.

Use the tools at your disposal and prosper. Or be apathetic and fail.

Second, for film and content makers, the paradigm shift is creating a new normal of ABUNDANCE. The world is becoming saturated with content, to the point where people can't keep up with the amount of film, television, music, theatre, books, etc; that are being released.

So, film and content makers must start to respect marketing. You must learn everything about it and be strategic with how you use it. You must think of marketing as a tool to find that audience who will love your work. Otherwise you are just shouting in a crowded room.

Third, film and content makers must cultivate an audience. Connect with your audience. Find out who they are. Communicate with them. An audience who looks forward to your work, and who promotes you through their enthusiasm for your art, deserve to be thanked and rewarded. Having them is the difference between releasing one movie, and a long term career.

And finally, know that, despite the economic despair on the news, there is plenty of money floating around the world and good quality content is being demanded at greater rates than ever before.

This huge demand is wonderful for filmmakers, content makers and audiences alike.

The removal of barriers between us, brought about by the rise of the internet, is having far-reaching social, political, economic and cultural consequences.

2013 will be a year that the dust settles on some of these changes, and the picture is slightly clearer for the years ahead.

But you have to stay active and informed, to benefit from these opportunities.

It is hard work, but the rewards can be substantial, financially and existentially.

It's a great time to be alive, at the cusp of something new.

Thank goodness the Mayans got it wrong.

- - - - - - - - -
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

HOW DO WE KEEP MOVING?

I have been struggling for the last couple of days.

I am a filmmaker who has depicted the death of a child in a film.

A little girl, aged six.

The film I produced, 'The Good Neighbour' is broadly about child abuse, after all. We needed to see the consequences to understand that doing nothing is not an option when it comes to child abuse.

The great thing about making a film is that the little girl can wake up at the end of the scene.

She goes about her life.

She interacts with her friends and family.

She has hopes and dreams.

In short, she has a future beyond her death on screen.

On some level I worry about the desensitising effect that my film may have on people.

I want the audience to wake up out of apathy, not fall further into it.

And the argument about mass violence has too often reared its head in the context of the impact of media violence on would-be killers. The Aurora Cinema killer was dressed up as the Joker, from Batman, when he shot and killed those 12 people in a cinema in Colorado, USA.

The film they were watching was The Dark Knight Rises.

I have younger brothers and sisters. Each one of them is absolutely precious to me.

I saw them in the faces of the children in Connecticut, USA.

20 children who will not go on with their lives.

They will not interact with their friends and family.

They will never achieve their hopes and dreams.

They have no future beyond their death on screen.

I broke down and cried.

How do we keep moving after something so awful?

I feel like the arts have a part to play. A method of expression and meaning in a world that can sometimes seem so cruel.

Somehow, we have to play our part in humanising the world. Economics and politics don't do this. The arts do.

There are few more powerful feelings than connecting with the humanity in a piece of art; be it music, film, literature, theatre, painting, sculpture, anything.

I still shed a tear at the end of 'The Good Neighbour' when the little girl dies.

For some reason I feel that this emotive power in art can be a part of the healing.

I hope so.

But that is the future.

For now all I can feel is grief for the innocent lives blinked out without reason.

- - - - - - - - -
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 CAUGHT A MOVIE, VIRALLY

It's funny how context and time changes things.

If you are in a doctor's office, or an inhabitant of Sub-Saharan Africa, the last words you want to hear are: "You have a viral hit".

If you are an internet marketer or a filmmaker trying to get word of their film out into the world, 'virality' is a big success.

The common thread between these negative and positive versions of "going viral" is that both are fairly dependent on luck.

Contemporary filmmakers often rely on the luck of social media, rather than marketing, to hope that they find an audience.

It is something I have noticed happening more and more frequently. A couple of weeks ago, I shared my radio interview with you where I mentioned that Australian Filmmakers' regular weakness was marketing.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/marketing-our-achilles-heel.html

My point was that, in a rapidly converging world, where Australian films will be up against international blockbusters in online catalogues, we need to respect marketing as a way to make Australian films stand out.

The challenge I see is that Australian filmmakers rely on social media to make up the difference when they have cut their marketing budget down to nothing.

By way of example, recently I was in contact with a pair of critically acclaimed Australian filmmakers who were about to release their latest feature film. These filmmakers wanted help raising awareness for the new film via social networks because they had little to no marketing budget. I spread the word as much as humanly possible, hoping for the best for them, but suspecting that they had a difficult road ahead. Sadly, despite the film winning major awards and, from all reports, receiving good reviews, at last check it has returned less than $50,000 at the box office.

The question all Australian filmmakers should be asking themselves at this point is: how can people see my film if they don't know it exists?

If your answer is 'virality' or social media, consider this...

Recent, very basic, case study analysis of social media has showed that, of your friends/followers on the social media platforms, approximately 30-40% are 'active' users of the social networking site (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc). 'Active' means using social networking every day.

So, your audience who are actually reading your regular Tweets or Facebook posts are far less than your actual number of followers.

Of your friends/followers, approximately 10-20% will be friends or followers of an excessively large group of people. On Twitter for example, one case study revealed that approximately 10% of followers also followed over 1000 other Twitter users.

The result of following large numbers of people on Twitter or Facebook is that individual Tweets or Facebook posts become a tiny drop in the ocean of information that user receives. This exponentially increases the chance that your Tweet or Facebook post will go unseen by that individual.

So, if you are expecting to use social media to plug the gaping whole in your marketing budget, think again.

Also, keep in mind that the Americans, in particular, go WAY overboard in their attempts to turn their films into viral hits. They are your competition in this area, and they are formidable.

To prove the point, I give you 'The Dark Knight Rises'. This film earned a mammoth $1.08 billion worldwide at the box office. What you may not have known, however, is that the film had an extensive viral marketing campaign in the lead up to the film's release.

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/virals-dark-knight-rises-reveals-details/

Do you think no-one would have heard of the film, if not for the viral marketing?

That was rhetorical. I think this was overkill by the Americans on a film that had a massive built in audience.

But it also shows the lengths they will go to to ensure that the audience is aware and engaged with their film.

And this is what you are up against when you try to use nothing but social media to promote your film.

There has to be a middle ground between the Australian Filmmakers who don't take marketing seriously and the Americans who are so cashed up they take it to extremes.

Australian filmmakers have to get this right, for our own survival in the years to come. We need to embrace the regular use of hybrid marketing strategies combining traditional marketing and social media.

In short, we need to make sure we have done everything to ensure people have heard of our films.

Or, you can just rely on becoming a viral hit.

Assuming you feel lucky, 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

WHAT HAPPENED TO ADAM SANDLER?

I can readily admit, I used to enjoy Adam Sandler movies.

'Billy Madison' was funny.

So was the 'Wedding Singer'.

And then, at some point around 'Little Nicky' it started to slide.

'Anger Management' was OK, but that was more Jack Nicholson's help than Sandler.

And then he squeezed out the $90 million 'You Don't Mess With The Zohan'. Good god that was awful.

But he topped that with the absolutely abominable $79 million 'Jack and Jill'.

And of course recently, the universally panned $70 million 'That's My Boy'.

The last two are particularly significant.

'Jack and Jill' was the first movie EVER to win every category at the Razzie's, the anti-oscars that recognises the worst movies and performances. It even won Adam Sandler a worst actress and wost actor gong, because Sandler played both roles of the titular sibling pair.

Sandler has never been a critics darling, but 'Jack and Jill' also scored a terrible 3% on film rating site Rotten Tomatoes. This marks the first real turn against Sandler by his audience.

To be sure, the film still made a healthy profit at the box office, as did the other films I mentioned. In that sense, Sandler didn't have to be too dissuaded.

Until 'That's My Boy'.

'That's My Boy' marks the first of this recent string of films to show poorly at the box office, returning only $58 Million of its $70 million budget.

So what happened?
Did Sandler have his 'jump the shark' moment, officially running out of ideas?

I stumbled upon an interesting analysis which suggests something different.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/06/adam_sandlers_house_of_pain.html

In their analysis, these guys suggest Sandler has found a way to use product placement and p*nis jokes to guarantee that he will be paid millions of dollars.

You see, Adam Sandler gets paid $25 million a movie up front. That is regardless of how it performs at the box office.

After his golden years, when Sandler made half-decent and commercially successful films, he has a built-in audience, to some degree. These are people who will come and see his films because they are 'Adam Sandler' films.

So, the analysis suggests it is simply a form of mathematics:

SANDLER'S AUDIENCE + PRODUCT PLACEMENT = MOVIE NEVER LOSES MONEY

For this, Sandler can charge his $25 million producer's fee up front and live happily ever after.

My favourite quote from the article sums it up best:

The $79 million question is, as Jay puts it: "At what point does something like this cease to be able to be called a 'movie.' And I think this is it." "Jack and Jill" cost more than half again as much as last summer's $50 million comedy "Crazy, Stupid, Love," which had more stars: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore, Emma Stone... and yet, as Mike says, it looks like it was shot over the weekend. Maybe in somebody's garage. Jay says he he has nothing against product placement, but "Jack and Jill" seems to have been designed around the ads: "They literally stop the film to have commercial breaks."

So, is it possible that they are right and that Sandler has decided to stop telling stories and just make a lot money?

Yes, it is absolutely possible.

What you may not realise is that generally a film producer gets paid on the size of the budget. A usual 'Producer's Fee' is 2-5% of the production budget. The bigger the production budget, the bigger your actual fee becomes in dollar terms.

In one of my previous newsletters I told the tale of a feature film producer who I met, who had turned filmmaking into a day job in the worst sense:http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/love-your-day-job.html

This producer talked about finding ways to get your film's budget level higher so you can charge a higher fee and make a living. My argument was that, if all you want is money, there are much more financially stable ways to make a living. If you are not interested in good storytelling, become an accountant.

What this producer talked about is exactly what Sandler is doing on a much larger scale with his films.

Sandler assembles a semi-attractive looking film with enough names attached and crass humour to look like it will draw a crowd. He fills it with product placement, bumps up the budget level and charges his big fee.

From this, he lives very comfortably.

However, where the...

SANDLER'S AUDIENCE + PRODUCT PLACEMENT = MOVIE NEVER LOSES MONEY

...equation has started to fall down is in the 'Sandler's Audience' part.

You see, if you disrespect the audience long enough, they will stop being your audience.

One could suggest that a film winning EVERY category of the worst film awards is a big step in that direction.

Sadly, I think Sandler is a talented guy.

He was wonderful in 'Funny People', 'Punch Drunk Love' and 'Reign Over Me'.

Unfortunately for Sandler, however, is that the common thread between these better films is that none of them were 'Adam Sandler' films, in the classic sense.

So you have a choice.

Stay humble. Stay true to your storytelling. Never lose sight of your audience.

Judd Apatow is a respected filmmaker and millionaire doing it this way.

Or you can forego good storytelling and try and fleece your audience for as much money as possible.

Just hope you make enough money before your audience turns on you.

Oh, and be sure to keep shelf space aside for your Razzie.

http://www.razzies.com/

- - - - - - - - -
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

MARKETING, OUR ACHILLES HEEL

I thought I would try something different this week. A change, they say, is as good as a holiday.

So, I revamped the subscription version of my Newsletter. This is the archive, so if you would like to subscribe so you get it hot off the presses, go to http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

I was also recently interviewed on a Radio Adelaide show 'Behind The Screens' about my work and film issues generally. During the show they asked me to give one rant on something that needed to be said about the Australian Film Industry.

My answer was on marketing, or rather, the lack thereof.

Rather than write a long spiel here, I thought you might like to listen to the short interview instead, which 'Behind The Screens' has posted on their website:

http://behindthescreensradio.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/show-2-42-life-the-universe-and-everything-and-some-movies/

You will need to scroll down a little until you see my face and my interview, ready and waiting to be played.

You can listen to the whole thing, or simply skip to the salient points I make about marketing, from 7:15 to 11:04.

Enjoy.


- - - - - - - - -
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 CASE FOR SIMULTANEOUS DISTRIBUTION

I have to quickly point out how much I love the above image. Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins as a one-man band, playing all instruments simultaneously. Get it?

Back to the point at hand, I have said before that exhibitors are the biggest problem facing filmmakers in the evolving entertainment landscape: http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/exhibitors.html

In a changing world, exhibitors (the cinema owners) are in the 'flat earth map' business.

They keep resisting improvements that would make the film business relevant again, maybe even economically sustainable.

One such improvement is 'Simultaneous Distribution'; the act of releasing a film in all forms (in cinemas, online, on Blu Ray, on DVD, etc etc) at the same time.

This idea goes against the traditional release windows, where a film would be in cinemas, then video stores, then for retail sale, then TV, then Pay TV, etc etc.

The traditional release windows, of course, represent a pay wall, intended to keep the movie business profitable.

But times have changed. Audiences have changed.

The pay wall in movies is KILLING THE MOVIE BUSINESS.

Audiences have less time.

They have more forms of entertainment than ever before.

They have piracy.

And what do the movies do?

Make it HARDER for audiences to get to the content.

How does this make sense?

Instead of being more creative by making the audience experience better in the different delivery mechanisms (e.g. an easier streaming movie website to navigate; or a better cinema experience) we instead are entrenching the pay walls that protect scarcity in movies, thereby hoping to protect the economic viability of cinema.

IT'S. NOT. WORKING.

If you want to read up on this, I found an excellent article in the NY Times on the subject. The overall article's message is average reading, it goes to great lengths to labour a point we understood in the title, but it's the tidbits scattered throughout that should make the hair on filmmaker's necks stand up. I'll share the best ones:

'Films, while in theaters, live behind a pay wall; television is free, once the monthly subscription is paid. And at least since “The Sopranos” sophisticated TV series have learned to hook viewers on long-term character development; movies do that mostly in fantasy franchises like the “Twilight” series.'

'After the shock of last year's decline in the number of tickets sold for movies domestically, to 1.28 billion, the lowest since 1995...' 

'As the awards season unfolds, the movies are still getting smaller. After six weeks in theaters “The Master,” a 70-millimeter character study much praised by critics, has been seen by about 1.9 million viewers. That is significantly smaller than the audience for a single hit episode of a cable show like “Mad Men” or “The Walking Dead.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/movies/hollywood-seeks-to-slow-cultural-shift-to-tv.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1&

There is so much entertainment available to audiences, that the one who makes themselves the hardest to reach...loses.

Less people are going to the movies, but exhibitors keep raising cinema ticket prices to...stay profitable.

More and more audiences are watching movies on phones and tablets. Instead of making the movies readily available on these devices from day 1, to engage both the audience who wants to go to the movies and the audience who prefers to watch in their own space, we have 'release windows' that ensure that you can only see the movie at a cinema. This preserves a false scarcity for cinemas to help them...stay profitable.

When did cinema's need for profitability overtake the need for the film industry to stay relevant and connect to their audience?

While exhibitors fight to stay profitable, they are creating a smaller and smaller pie overall for the movie business. They are winning battles, but really losing the war. Badly.

If a film could be in cinemas and available to tablet watchers at the same time, the filmmakers would actually be better off. But somehow it's not even about the filmmakers anymore, much less the audience.

Yes, the exhibitors may suffer a little under simultaneous distribution, so it seems that they are therefore shouting the loudest, and thus getting the most consideration. For now.

But what would happen if they embraced simultaneous distribution instead?

What if they realised that there are some people who just don't like going to the cinema? They prefer their living room.

These are the people who are most likely to pirate films, because they were never going to go to the cinema anyway, and they don't want to wait for the film to be legally available.

Or they give up on the film and get their entertainment from something else instead: games, television, real life...

So, we lose this person's purchase of a legal copy that they can watch at home, so that the exhibitors can keep trying to force people to go to the cinema.

That is the real effect of the pay wall.

Exhibitors are actually harming the industry they rely on. It is absolutely ludicrous.

Breaking down the pay wall, brick by ridiculous brick, needs to happen. Embracing simultaneous distribution will force cinemas to do something positive: offer a better service or experience to their customers, to stay in business.

Rather than relying on a false scarcity, exhibitors will have to justify their price increases by making the movie-going experience more enjoyable for the audience.

Because, in the end, without an audience, we have nothing.
- - - - - - - - -
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