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

IGNORED IN A SUBWAY STATION

Do you run on autopilot everyday? Wake up, do the 'get ready' shuffle, leave the house, take the car/bus/train, arrive somewhere, do something for a while...

...then actually wake up and wonder where the morning has gone?

It's a tough balance. You weigh getting a running start to the day versus actually taking in the precious moments we are all lucky to have.

When I was a kid, I had all the time in the world. Now there are not enough hours in the day. That's life, I guess.

And in that rush, do you notice the tiny pockets of life that go on around you during those waking hours? Don't feel bad if the answer is no.

It's a quirky world we live in. We cross paths everyday with people who represent their own microcosm of relationships, stories, problems, desires, hopes and dreams.

But we never enter their universe, and they never enter ours.

Occasionally, something hits our frequency and breaks through the din. For me it is usually a busker. Most often at a train station. If I have a coin and they are half decent, I will usually toss it in their hat. Paying it forward, I guess.

So, imagine you are on your way to work. On the way, you see a busker playing a violin, near the entrance to a train station. You couldn't be sure, but you could tell that this busker was particularly skilled on the violin. Much better than your average train station loiterer with a guitar.

Would you stop?

Or are you too busy and focused to take the time?

How would you feel if you then realised you missed the chance to hear one of the greatest violinists in the world? A man who usually commands roughly $1000 a minute for his performances?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

Yes, unfortunately this is a true story.

At a subway in the United States, world-renowned violinist Joshua Bell performed incognito to test whether people would stop for a busker of his extraordinary ability.

They didn't.

The meaning that was extrapolated from this experiment was that people do not pay attention to the tiny details of life, even when something truly incredible is on offer. We are, apparently, too busy to see the beauty around us.

Personally, I think that conclusion is a stretch.

There are, however, a few lessons for you from the impromptu concert of Mr Joshua Bell.

First and foremost, for the filmmakers and content creators amongst you: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!

If you are trying to appeal to everyone, you will dilute the message of your work and appeal to no-one. If you are writing a horror film, write it for people who like horror films. It's fairly simple, but content makers get this simple idea wrong all the time.

Second: GO WHERE YOUR AUDIENCE IS!

How else will they find you in the sea of content? If you are playing classical violin music, play it where there are people who appreciate and want to hear classical violin music. If you are making a comedy film about two caucasian men who banter about their jobs and smoke weed, make the film available in places/platforms where audiences who love 'stoner comedies' congregate.

Don't play classical music in a train station. Audiences there are looking for, well, trains.

And finally, this one is for everyone: LOOK AROUND AND APPRECIATE THE LITTLE THINGS OCCASIONALLY.

We really are lucky to be the evolved monkeys we have become, floating on this magical dirt ball in space. It can only help you to appreciate it, enjoy the little details, from time to time.

You are unlikely to see a world famous violinst being ignored at your local train station.

But it can't hurt to pay attention, just in case.

- - - - - - - - -
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 GLUM PROGNOSTICATIONS OF STEVEN SPIELBERG AND GEORGE LUCAS

We are all doomed!

The film industry is going to implode!

The sky is falling!

One of the above is a true prediction of film industry legends Steven Spielberg and George Lucas.

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/lucas-spielberg-on-future-of-entertainment-1200496241/

Not really what the audience at the University of Southern California expected when they invited the two Hollywood giants to speak, I'm sure.

So, we have two Hollywood legends, titans of the medium, suggesting that the studio system will implode and the film business will radically change.

Lucas even suggested the cinemas will turn into Broadway, where people pay $50 to $150 a ticket for a theatrical show.

Hmm...

I am really trying to think of a respectful way to phrase my reaction. It's not that I think that the legends themselves will read this, it's your bad language email and web filters I am worried about.

All I can really say is WOW.

These two legends are, I'm sorry to say, totally lost as to where the film industry is headed.

Comparing a cinema ticket to a theatre ticket? In the age of piracy and home cinemas?

Insanity!

Are they even reading the data that is available?

Audiences are consuming more content than EVER before. EVER.

The demand is there. Yes, that content is being viewed over a number of platforms, but the cinema is still very much a part of that spectrum. The problem is not that people don't want to go to the cinema to watch movies.

The problem is that, despite incredible technological improvements that should have significantly decreased the cost of making movies, there is huge amounts of waste on a big budget film. No business could survive burning through as much money as a major Hollywood production. If this problem is solved, it would actually be a wonderful change of a wasteful culture.

The problem is that exhibitors keep indiscriminately raising prices with no matching improvement in the experience of going to the cinema.

The problem is that the price of the cinema ticket does not reflect the cost involved in making that movie, and therefore a true economic choice by an audience member is distorted. If the $200 million blockbuster and the $200 thousand independent film cost the same to watch, I will choose for my 'money's worth' without making a real choice between the films.

Imagine you went to restaurant. Now imagine that the restaurant charged you one price, $75, no matter what you eat. On the menu are two choices: a plate filled with lobster, caviar and truffles; and a McDonald's hamburger. Which would you choose?

Of course, you will choose the fine dining option, for the sake of value. And that is the decision we force people into, every time they go to the cinema. Why are we surprised at the result?

What really surprises me is that, despite this severely flawed model, people are still going to the cinema en masse. So much, in fact, that it flies totally in the face of what Lucas and Spielberg are saying.

Don't believe me? Well, the year 2012 in cinematic terms:

- had the greatest number of films crossing the $1 billion mark, with four films. It is also the second year in which two films released by the same studio have grossed over $1 billion, after 2010;

- is the only year that eleven films have earned more than $600 million worldwide ('Life of Pi' also grossed over $600 million); and

- has beaten the record for the greatest number of films earning more than $500 million, with thirteen films ('Ted' and 'Brave' also grossed over $500 million).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_in_film

So, where are Spielberg and Lucas getting their information?

I would much rather ask an actual cinema owner who is also a filmmaker. Love him or hate him, Michael Moore and his team have built the Traverse City Theatre in Michigan into the most highly regarded cinema in the world. So says the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

Mr Moore was also generous enough to share his blueprint for success in an interview. My favourite quote:

'We don't rip people off. You can see a first-run movie for $8 and $6 (kids are less). Late night on the weekend is 2 for $5. We have 25-cent kids matinees on Saturday mornings (often packed with 580 people in attendance) and 25-cent classic movie matinees on Wednesdays. As for the concessions: No $10 popcorn at our place! Popcorn is as low as $2, soda $2 and candy as low as $1. We believe everyone should be able to afford to go to the movies.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/heres-how-we-built-a-movi_b_3391123.html

Charging people less so they can actually afford to go to the movies? How revolutionary.

So, is the world of film and television changing? Of course it is. The whole world is going through rapid, destabilising change as a result of technology.

But that doesn't mean that we are set for a catastrophic implosion. It means that we have to evolve. It means we have to show people that art, movies and storytelling are valuable to their human experience. It means we have to stop ripping people off in the name of excessive profits.

That is what these two legends should have said.

Instead, they accidentally revealed what we all really know. What is not being said. The elephant in the room.

They revealed that the world is changing in ways that defy prediction. No-one has the answers. Even legends aren't experts anymore.

You can be paralysed by terror at this fact.

To me, it is an exciting new era. The rule book has been cast aside. You are free to build your own career and create your own paradigm.

But are you ready for the challenge?

- - - - - - - - -
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

INVITE YOURSELF

So, I was standing on the street after the Australian-premiere screening of 'The Rocket' at the Sydney Film Festival, hoping for an invite to the after party.

Wait, I'll go back a step.

The Sydney Film Festival hosted the Australian Premiere screening of 'The Rocket' on Saturday night. It's a new Australian film, set in Laos, that won a Crystal Bear for best debut feature at the Berlin Film Festival, and the Grand Jury Prize at the Tribeca Film Festival.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/the-rocket-kill-team-win-at-tribeca-film-festival-20130429

It's a 'boy from Laos overcomes horrible circumstances by building a rocket' story, and it's really quite good.

The film ended to rapturous applause.

A question and answer session followed with the adorable kids from the film, the other cast, the Producer Sylvia Wilczynski, and the director Kim Mordaunt.

Then, we were all on the street.

The next event after a premiere screening is almost always the after party. A chance to have a drink with other filmmakers, hear stories and do some networking. A chance only if you have an invitation, of course.

I had received a last minute invite to one earlier in the week, after the opening night film of the Festival. So, I thought lightning could strike twice.

At this point, I was looking around for a familiar face. I knew a couple of people who had worked on the film and I VERY VAGUELY knew Kim and Sylvia, the Producer-Director team. Not nearly enough to have any real connection to the film though.

I bumped into some people I knew from the film world. Polite chat ensued.

Suddenly, the Executive Producer of the film walked past, on the way to the party, and tapped one of our group on the shoulder.

"You're coming to the party", he said.

With a shrug and a smile at us, they walked off together.

The rest of us looked at each other. Silence. Then polite good-byes.

So, there I was, standing on the street after the Australian-premiere screening of 'The Rocket' at the Sydney Film Festival, hoping for an invite to the after party.

And I suddenly realised what you already know as you are reading this.

I was acting on a stupid impulse.

I was behaving like a 'hanger-on'; someone who wants to be invited to the parties even though they have no real connection to the film or the filmmakers. 'Hangers-on' want to be 'picked' by those who are successful, to be around them, rather than use their time forging their own destiny.

The after-party is not supposed to be some sycophantic gathering of self-indulgence. It's supposed to be a celebration for the filmmakers after a successful screening of their film; somewhere the team can come together to acknowledge each other's hard work that lead to this moment.

Why on Earth would I want to get in the way of that?

I had been beguiled by the glamour. The thrill of feeling like you are 'in' the group.

The most ironic part of all this being that I revile 'hangers-on'. It's total hypocrisy on my part.

Mind you, I don't rebuke 'hangers-on' for indulging that impulse. If there is anything that high school teaches you, it is the positive/negative reinforcement that comes from being invited to/excluded from a selective group.

What I disagree with, is directing your energy and effort to 'being picked'.

The successful people most 'hangers-on' want to be around didn't wait to be anointed by someone else. They earned their success through achievement. They picked themselves.

For some reason, I had been distracted from this simple fact.

And with that simple realisation, the witchcraft of glamour was broken. I remembered who I am.

I said a quick congratulations to Kim on the film and the audience response.

Then, I walked away from the crowd outside the theatre.

I had a quick bite to eat nearby, and I went home.

When I arrived home, even though it was late, I worked on one of my own film projects. Because the next after party I go to, I want to be hosting not 'hanging-on'.

I will not wait to be picked ever again, and neither should you.

Choose yourself instead.

- - - - - - - - -
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 WHITEBOARD OF LOST DREAMS

Do you remember your childhood dreams? What you wanted to be?

I wanted to be a mad scientist. I don't know why it had to be a 'mad' scientist. Maybe they just seemed to be having more fun.

Or I wanted to be a stand-up comedian. That's a legacy of Bill Murray. I loved 'Ghostbusters'.

And, if I had the time between all that comedy and mad science, I wanted to be a writer.

Then you start to grow up. Influencers tell you that you need 'goals' not dreams. Everything gets turned into a process. Soon, if you have too many 'goals' there are too many processes you need to complete. So, you have to start sacrificing dreams.

It's called making choices and being a grown up, apparently.

Grown ups have to do grown up things. These get added to the pile. You have to "start families" and "make homes". Breeding and buying makes you an adult.

Often, where I live, I see the refuse of 'home making'. At any given time you can walk the streets and find an entire household of discarded furniture and home items. There are a lot of renters where I live, you see. Renters have a tendency to downsize everytime they move; which can be often. It's not like households are breaking down, it's just the gypsy life of the inner city.

Hence the poor man's Ikea on the sidewalks.

On a warm night a few weeks ago, I was walking around my neighbourhood. Nothing suspect, I just like to walk sometimes. It keeps you in touch with humanity.

I came across a pile of stuff someone had thrown away in haste. I usually do a quick check to see how long it has been there and if there is anything worth taking. Don't judge, these days people throw away perfectly fine items all the time. I have a footstool in my living room that I acquired that way.

So, I quickly scanned the pile for anything worthwhile. It was mostly used Ikea furniture. Nothing worth lugging around.

And then, I spotted an old whiteboard.

It had obviously been thrown away in a rush. The previous owner hadn't even cleaned it. On it was a list of their goals.

Their dreams.

'By 2007, I will have directed a major motion picture for Dreamworks'.

But that was not the most ambitious.

'By 2009, I will have won at least one Oscar'.

Wow.

I couldn't help but wonder. What happened to this person?

Did writing their dreams onto a whiteboard, framing them as specific goals like grown ups do, help them find success?

Or did it just serve as a constant reminder of the goals that were going unachieved?

Sure, they were ambitious goals, but there is nothing wrong with aiming high.

On one level, it made me sad. Why did they throw this whiteboard away? Did they throw their dreams away too? 

Maybe.

Maybe they had to throw out the whiteboard to relocate to LA for their Dreamworks feature film debut. Maybe they were in such demand, they didn't have time to clean the whiteboard as they rushed for the airport.

I hope so.

But even if that didn't happen, I hope they learned something simple.

Goals are helpful, but being too scientific with your dreams is a mistake.

Work towards them. Put in the effort. Think harder. Absolutely, these are all essential.

But never forget that dreams are meant to inspire. Not to be analysed. Not to be broken down into tiny pieces that make you feel like you're not a failure because they are on a list with ticks next to them.

Dreams are meant to be big. They are meant to scare you and excite you at the same time. They are the things that drive your passion, and passion, my friends, is all that matters.

Don't ever let them go.

Even if you only scrape your fingertips on your dreams, you will feel an achievement that can't be measured or compared. And you will inspire others to chase theirs.

Don't ask yourself what you want to have and by when.

What do you want to be?

- - - - - - - - -
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'M STILL STANDING

I used to work in a video store. Have I ever told you that?

I'm not trying to claim any kind of post-modern Tarantino cool. I was a teenager living in Western Sydney.

I needed the money.

We've all had our odd jobs. It's one of the commonalities amongst disparate people. We all do what we can for a little extra money.

Sometimes these can be formative experiences. Sometimes not.

Often they are the basis for our first engagement with the wider world.

Scary when you think I was occasionally renting porn to middle aged men in those days.

And I was talking to someone from those days recently. It's funny to talk about video stores now. It's like a lost art.

Back then, we rented out VHS tapes. Yes, tapes. This was the world before DVD.

When DVD arrived it was like a godsend. Have you ever had to rewind a pile of VHS tapes?

You don't have to rewind a disk. An old lady asked how to, once. True story.

And the tapes were expensive. Not like the $30 home videos you bought at KMart. Video store tapes had to be played over a hundred times. They were the special forces of VHS tapes.

And if the tape broke, or someone's broken down video player chewed it up, we had to know how to fix it. Cutting out the damaged section. Splicing it back together.

Sure, you would lose a few hundredths of a second between when the TRex eats the goat and breaks out of its enclosure, but only a hummingbird would notice.

These were good times. It felt tactile. It was real. A skill.

And as we reminisced about those days, we realised something. Those jobs don't even exist anymore.

Sure, there are a few video stores still dotted around, but they are getting fewer and fewer.

Once upon a time, every local shopping village had a video store.

My old store is a discount shop now.

But it's the pace of this change that is so astounding.

My stories are not from the 50's. I was working in the video store in 1997.

In sixteen years, whole industries have disappeared. There were companies that exclusively sold VHS tape cleaners and rewinders.

No more.

And with a head full of these freshly revived memories, I was bemused to see a fully refurbished video store in Sydney.

Yes, they are renting out DVD's, but the medium was never the problem.

It was always the cost and the convenience.

Sure, some people like going to a store to read the slicks on the DVDs and picking from a wall of new releases.

But some people still like vinyl records too.

Is that proof that vinyl is going to take over digital sales of music?

No, some people just like vinyl. They're a niche.

Are refurbished video stores proof that the DVD is making a comeback over the growth of online movie sales/streaming?

No.

They're proof that some people prefer the simplicity of the past they understand than the convenience of the future.

And this is the lesson for all of us.

You can be too focussed on the future to reap success in the present.

And you can be too tied to the past to see the opportunities ahead.

In this era of transformation, your success will lie in somehow navigating both of these competing forces.

Be prepared to utilise the technology of the future to help you reach your growing audience.

Embrace the idea of throwing out the old rules and building something better.

But also realise there are plenty of people still buying DVDs and Blu Rays. Ignore them at your own peril.

Because until that generation passes, video stores will exist. For now.

Just don't build your business model on them.

- - - - - - - - -
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

THINK HARDER

Smart is sexy again.

Take a look at the metaphorical rockstars of today. They are all in tech. Have you ever watched a Steve Jobs Apple presentation?

Lose the shirt and add some hair, and he's more akin to Robert Plant than Bill Gates.

Yes, the geeks are inheriting the Earth and I, for one, couldn't be happier. After all, the greatest challenges we face as a species can only be solved with great ideas. We need brain power in spades.

And then, on queue, being smart becomes in vogue again.

The timing couldn't be better, really.

So often I see people dig themselves into enormous holes, all because they are striving for easy or convenient rather than working smarter.

THINK HARDER.

Too often I hear people complaining about the achievements of others. Too often I hear these same people suggesting that they have paid their dues and earned success. Too often, when I ask around, I find out that the complainer is actually unreliable and does the bare minimum in any job they are given. They may have been around for a long time, but the quality of their work is sorely lacking.

The complainer prefers trying to bring everyone down to their level rather than strive for greatness.

THINK HARDER.

This is my new slogan. My new mantra. My version of the famous inscription on the 'Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy': DON'T PANIC.

I want to put it on t-shirts and billboards worldwide.

It has started to become my standard answer for a lot situations. Not for the purpose of being dismissive, but simply because, surprisingly, it is often the most appropriate answer.

"Oh, so you think you should send out that first draft of your script, that you wrote in a day, without reviewing it yourself for rewriting potential, or even basic spelling mistakes?"

THINK HARDER.

"Oh, so you haven't done a shred of research on that key subject, even though it is simply a Google search away?"

THINK HARDER.

You get the point.

It's an age of opportunity, like the gold rush, because the old rules are being rewritten as we speak.

You can make of your life and career what you want. Isn't that remarkable?

But the key to success, is being willing to think harder than the people you are competing with.

For example, I have written before about relying too heavily on viral marketing to spread the word on your film. It's not a great idea: http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/i-caught-movie-virally.html

It's not only about the competition you face for 'virailty', but also the amount of investment it takes to become a 'viral success'.

Take 'The Dark Knight' and its viral marketing campaign.

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

Or 'Become Iron Man' for 'Iron Man 3'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSDjL2DVDM

Would no-one have watched these movies without a grassroots/viral marketing campaign?

Before you answer, remember these are two major Hollywood franchise films, and both highly anticipated sequels. There was already a very strong built in audience awareness.

Who gave the approval for these marketing initiatives? Who thought it was a good idea to spend MORE money (i.e. Iron Man 3 had a reported production budget of $200M) to sell the film to an already sold public? Is this a waste of marketing dollars?

I know, I know, 'Iron Man 3' has made a billion dollars at the box office. But can you honestly tell me that is because of expensive viral marketing initiatives?

I'm not convinced. It's old school 'overwhelm them with advertising' thinking in an evolving world.

We are entering an era of abundance in entertainment, with huge volumes of games, movies, music, etc available almost instantly. This abundance only makes it harder for audiences to decide where to spend their precious time, and thus fragments our possible audiences even further.

It's not like the days when there were only three television stations and 4 radio stations to spruik your new film through. Catching people's attention is becoming more difficult.

It's a war for audience attention.

In that environment, resources become tighter and every expense, especially marketing investment, becomes critical.

Yes, you could spend a small fortune on viral marketing initiatives that you hope will help, OR you could use that money strategically and maximise the audience engagement from your marketing spend.

Which all leads us back to the same point.

Getting your hands on the kind of financial resources that the studios have to market 'Iron Man 3', or the Batman films, is unlikely for the vast majority of filmmakers. And the studios will spend this money, whether they need to or not. This crowded marketplace is where you will be trying to make your voice heard.

But that doesn't mean that there is no hope for the rest of the filmmakers out there.

It does mean, however, that your work is going to be fiercely competing for attention. The only way you succeed in that environment, and find your audience, is to make smarter choices than your competitors.

You have to avoid choosing the easy options, like a lot of viral marketing initiatives. Don't just buy a bigger megaphone.

You have to THINK HARDER.

I believe you can do it. What do you think?

- - - - - - - - -
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 - 'Part One: Love' nominated for best documentary at the St Kilda Film Festival!

Great news!

Our film, 'Part One: Love' has been nominated for best documentary at the St Kilda 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.sbs.com.au/documentary/blogs/view/id/127864/t/St-Kilda-Film-Festival-nominees

http://www.filmink.com.au/notices/7476/

Fingers crossed on a win but, given how warmly we were received and how well the audience responded at our festival screening, it truly is just an honour to be nominated.

THE JUSTIFIED COMEUPPANCE OF THE PHONIES

A heist has been uncovered.

A complicated confidence scam involving major corporations.

It happened in plain sight.

And it all started with online video.

Online views are the new heroin, you see.

Ask anyone who has ever posted anything online.

You become addicted to watching the counters. You can't help it.

How many 'Likes'?

How many views?

Do they love me?

As the great viewing revolution has evolved, and audiences move increasingly to online video, these simple metrics have become increasingly important.

Not just for your ego. For actual commerce.

Careers are being built on the foundation of online popularity.

How else did Psy become a worldwide success?

His music video, 'Gangnam Style' is the most watched video on Youtube, with 1.5 billion views.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/29/psys-gentleman-music-video-sets-guinness-world-record/

The view counter, therefore, is becoming a symbol of how large your audience is.

Large audiences give established players (e.g. Hollywood studios) confidence in supporting you on your next piece of art.

And so careers are built.

But don't be fooled into thinking it's just about art.

There is plenty of money floating around too.

Psy is now a millionaire. 8 times over, in fact.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121209/07431921317/psy-makes-81-million-ignoring-copyright-infringements-gangnam-style.shtml

But it's not just for pop stars. Advertisers want to play too.

If you are getting annoyed with the constant pre-roll of advertising at the start of nearly every Youtube video these days, that is the work of the advertisers.

That's the deal you've made, I'm afraid. If you want video content for free, you have to make some concessions.

And trust me, it's not going away.

Advertisement partnering on online videos is seen as one of the key foundations of the future video-on-demand (VOD) models.

Producers like me will be counting on these models to make money from our work and create sustainable careers.

So yes, I watch the view counter too.

For the advertisers, the view count is everything.

It tells them that their ads are reaching eyeballs. Their whole world.

It's where the money is.

And it's the perfect target for a heist.

How do you corrupt this seemingly scientific model, based on tangible data like a view counter?

Fake the views.

Oh yes, it's possible.

Believe it or not, you can artificially inflate the number of views of your work online.

But who would gain from this?

Some of the biggest media players in the business, that's who.

Think about it.

They gain both ways.

They make their product, whatever is the subject of the video, look popular and therefore easier to sell.

Win.

They also make it seem to advertisers that this video is worth partnering with, leading to a possible windfall from the revenue they get per ad, per view.

That's a winning each way bet. That's the heist.

But they got caught.

Surely I'm exaggerating, right?

Nope.

'Major record labels such as Universal, Sony/BMG, and RCA, were stripped by YouTube of over two billion views in the past month. Universal was hit the hardest, losing one billion views in the raid, and artists such as Michael Jackson, Chris Brown, Beyonce, and Avril Lavigne were all stripped of over 100 million phony views, violating YouTube's terms of service regarding view manipulation. In addition, videos from over 500 prominent channels were also stripped of views.'

http://www.complex.com/music/2012/12/youtube-strips-major-record-labels-of-over-two-billion-fake-views

The Young Turks provided a good analysis as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hhhuuRGfaU&sns=fb

Yes, they were caught with the hand in the cookie jar.

And their behaviour makes it harder for the rest of us filmmakers.

It reduces the power of a strongly viewed video to act as proof that you can engage with an audience. If the views are faked, what audience is there really?

It diminishes trust from possible advertisers and jeopardises a possible revenue stream for filmmakers.

In short, the heist benefits them and harms the rest of us.

But it's not all bad news.

That they were caught out is the most important thing.

There is an old saying, "transparency is the best antiseptic".

This behaviour had to be exposed and eliminated.

To clear a path for artists who are genuine, talented and organic.

To make way for those artists who have genuinely engaged audiences and lifted their view count legitimately.

To open opportunities for those artists who can potentially live off of the advertising revenue because of their talent and connection to a genuine audience base.

Now that the game is not rigged, why couldn't that be 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