Film Strategy

So there is a benefit to becoming famous on Youtube. Feature-length films starring YouTube stars are getting Hollywood's attention. In their quest to de-risk a film and make a film with a built-in audience and marketing potential at little cost, they have decided to invest in films starring people popular in the digital world. According to THR : There were about a dozen such "film" projects in 2015 alone, and that number could double this year as major entertainment players look to cash in. These digital-focused films follow a similar, and more inexpensive, formula on their way from concept to completed project. According to numerous industry sources, studios will pay between $500,000 and $1.5 million to produce the movie, and the marketing spend is a fraction of the minimum $20 million that a studio normally would shell out.  Instead of going to theaters, studios typically distribute the films through iTunes and Vimeo, where viewers can download them for about $1...

In his Art of War, Sun Tzu wisely counseled, "Assess the advantages in taking advice, then structure your forces, accordingly to supplement extraordinary tactics." With that kernel of wisdom in mind, I looked at this year's Pricewaterhouse Coopers Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2015-2019 and studied their summary of " Filmed Entertainment ." Although I have not read the full report, the summary provides plenty food for thought so I asked myself what would I do with this data as a filmmaker? My answers are below labeled, "The Film Strategy tip." Let me know what you would do with that data. Note, I have not purchased the full report and I am only basing this on the insights they published. But even those short insights are revealing. Growth around the world will boost filmed entertainment revenue.   Global total filmed entertainment revenue will rise at a 4.1% CAGR (Compounded Annual Growth Rate) to 2019, reaching US$104.62bn. Particularl...

Dear Filmmaker, Here's your homework: Pick one (1) script from the Oscar-nominated ones below and study it for structure, plot and character development and dialogue.  Then watch the movie produced out of it and pick 3 scenes that moved you. Review the scenes in the script and breakdown how the scene was directed. At every point, ask yourself, "Why* did the director do this?" Look for:  What kind of shots were used?  How were the shots composed/framed and lit?  How were the shots edited together?  What kind of transitions were used in between shots?  What kind of sounds and music accompanied them, if any?  How did the actors act and what aspects of the actor's performance did the director focus on?  And how did the production's design (costume, setting, location, makeup, VFX, etc.) contribute to the overall effect? Extra credit: pick 3 scenes from any of the scripts below that did NOT move you and using the script only, determin...

One of the things that struck me from my time in the USMC was that if my platoon had somehow been tasked with making a movie, we would deliver an Academy Award-worthy production way under-budget and way ahead-of-schedule. That's just the the kind of motivation and morale that almost seems intrinsic to being in the armed forces.  I think about my time in the Marines whenever I am behind the camera and draw on those experiences on everything from how to motivate the cast and crew to staying focused on the aesthetic and logistical mission at hand even when the stresses build.   I wonder too how much four of my favorite American film directors,  Samuel Fuller (served in the US Army, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division during World War 2), Robert Altman (served in the US Army Air Forces, 307th Bomb Group during World War 2), Clint Eastwood (served in the US Army) and Oliver Stone (served in the US Army, 25th Infantry Division then with the 1st Cavalry Div...

REPOSTED FROM MY OTHER BLOG: LENSATIC I have always admired the low-budget filmmaker who can make something beautiful or daring or entertaining with the tiniest budget.  Unfortunately, the low-budget filmmaker is not the rarity but the norm.  There is no shortage of filmmakers trying to create even if it means at negative cost to themselves because there is so much potential financial and personal reward in the end.  Maybe that's why the industry has been able to get away with paying nothing for highly creative and technical services and expensive equipment.  That's done more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.  That is why Charles Davis has done the industry a service by reporting on the internship abuse in the entertainment industry.  In a post for The Baffler, he  tracks and outs  the production companies that continue to perpetuate one of the worst practices of the film and TV industry: failing to pay workers a real wage by o...

The US film industry has seen the writing on the wall and knows that it's economic survival involves China.  But shooting in China and co-producing with Chinese companies means censorship is going to affect the story that makes it to the screen.  This willingness to give in to censorship even on non-controversial matters will stifle the creative decisions and directions of the filmmakers making the movies, maybe even to the detriment of the movie's quality.  A cynic might say that in the end, who cares about that as long as you're getting that box office yuan .  But it stands to reason that the kind of movie you make will determine how much of that money you make.  Put up a great movie and people will flock to it. Put up crap and people won't (at best you'll get a cult favorite that makes its money back over a long time, if ever). Most people are inclined to think that a great movie can't be made under the censor's watchful eye but that's not true. A...