Okay, I have no idea on how we're going to survive the singularity, but I DO have some ideas on the future of indie horror... which should entertain us until the robots do take over in a few years. I mean, not only is it one of the most asked questions of us... it's also one of the questions we ask the most, "What is the future of indie horror?" We're unwavering in our belief - there's a big, bright shiny future for it. However, a lot of people think that the economics just aren't there. It's a big debate and only time will tell the answer, but keeping that in mind, I'm going to make a couple of not-so-bold statements...
1. The idea of full-motion as a format, whether it be animation, video or film, isn't going anywhere.
2. People aren't going to stop telling stories.
I think we can all agree on those two statements, right? So, what can we take away from that? Well, I think it's safe to say that, in one form or another, you will always see stories in a full-motion format... at least for the foreseeable future. All the other factors may change, though, like: how we watch it, where we watch it, what format it's in, how it's displayed, etc. But I do think it's safe to say that there will always be stories to be told... and film/video will always be a medium used to tell them. How it's distributed? Different story.
Really, if you think about it, at the root, we really just want to be storytellers and, right now, we're just using film as the medium to tell it. So, as the industry is being shaken to its knees and we wait to see what rises from the ashes, we need to keep telling our stories, in a full-motion format, one way or the other... which brings me to this article. The article goes through three different stories being told using three different formats, all of which use the web as their distribution format. Are they financially successful? Do they have big audiences? I don't know, but they're telling stories in innovative ways and innovating is something that we should all be doing... until the robots kill us all.
Well, it's the day of the week where I link to some interesting articles and tidbits that I found out there on the web. Stuff that I think you, as an indie filmmaker, may find useful or interesting. Information you can use. Food for thought. Stuff that makes you go.... hmmmmm. Right, well. Where was I?
I tend to talk a lot about how we indie filmmakers need to think of our films and projects as 'content', as opposed to 'films'. Usually, I just talk about theory, statistics and things like that, rarely do I offer up anything that's terribly useful. I'd like to shift your attention to a company called Freewheel.tv. Now, once again, I'm not sure how useful they'll be to you, specifically, but it's interesting to know that they exist. Their tagline, if you can call it a tagline, is "Video Everywhere. Ad Revenue Anywhere. FreeWheel is here." Here's what you need to know... There's two ways for your content to make money. One, the viewer pays for it. Two, it's ad supported. I, personally, believe that most things are going to head towards the ad supported model and that's where a company like FreeWheel.tv comes in. Your specialty may be production, but you're going to have to get into things like analytics and metrics - who's watching, where are they watching, what are they watching it on, when are they watching it and all that. At absolute worst, you'll need to know what all this means. You see, you're selling space to marketers and advertisers and they work on things like CPM (costs per thousand), impressions and frequency. CPM is how much it costs them to reach 1,000 people, impressions are how many times their ad was seen and frequency is how many times their ad is played... You're going to need to know stuff like that and, if you do and the numbers are good, you have something to sell. FreeWheel.tv will help control, manage, optimize, forecast, adapt, simplify and standardize your content. If you're getting viewers, they'll help you get the metrics and information to help sell it, then monetize it. It's a whole other side of the business, but it's one you should know, as it's one that can make you money.
Now, I just read "'Saw' helmer to revisit Troma hit" on THR.com, which you can find here, and it got me thinking... So, Darren Lynn Bousman, one of the brains behind "Saw", not to mention the recent "Repo! The Genetic Opera", is interested in remaking... or should I say, reinvisioning... Charles Kaufman's "Mother's Day". Before I talk about what I was thinking, a bit about the original - it came out in 1980 and it's directed by Charles Kaufman, the brother of Lloyd (not the screenwriter), and it was distributed by Troma. It's basically a hillbilly horror, where a couple of good ole' boys rape and kill to impress their mentally deranged mother. The only reason the film got any recognition was because it depicted scenes of violence and rape, so it was labelled as an extreme exploitation film. Otherwise, it wasn't particularly successful. It was released on DVD in 2000 and has gained a bit of a cult following since then. Now, to be honest, I'm a little baffled by this one... when you remake "Friday the 13th" or "Nightmare on Elm Street", you get the title, that built in audience and the characters. With "Mother's Day", not only are you not getting any of that, it's not like the plot is terribly unique. I mean, why not just create your own hillbilly horror, based around the idea of a couple of mutant boys trying to impress their deranged mother? Having said that, I don't know how these deals are structured. Maybe Lloyd said, "Go ahead, use the name and borrow from the script as much as you want. Just mention that it's a Troma film and that it's a remake." If so, this could be a smart idea for Llyod and Troma, he's basically giving away a fairly dead title in exchange for a bit of press and advertising. Who knows? If that's the case, good on Lloyd. Actually, either way, good on Lloyd. Hopefully Bousman made a good deal...
Lastly, as you probably know, I'm a big fan of reading about and listening to what the big players have to say... I think it's good to be the small, indie guy, as you can change directions quicker and take bigger risks, but you should always hear what the whales have to say, as they're the ones pushing the money around. If money's what you're after, you better know where it's heading. This is an interview with Barry Diller, who's the Chairman and CEO of IAC/InterActiveCorp and the guy responsible for the creation of Fox Broadcasting and USA Broadcasting. You can find the interview here and it's not that long... what's really interesting is his thoughts on net neutrality, the future of TV and video on the web. Check it out!
What's going on out there on Al Gore's internet? As usual, quite a bit.
A little while back, we interviewed Peter Podgursky, the guy behind the USC thesis film, "Cheerbleeders". What sucks about reviewing and talking about short films is the fact that they can be hard to get your hands on. Nothing like getting a bunch of people interested in a film that they're probably not going to be able to see. Well, this is the internet age, my friends, and, if I may quote Homer Simpson, "The internet? Is that thing still around?" Well, yes it is. And right now, and for another week or so, you can check out "Cheerbleeders" on New Blood, for FREE by clicking here. Also, I have to like the fact that they linked back to our interview with Podgursky, which you can also find if you click here. It's a great short horror film and it's a great interview. If you're in film school, thinking about film school or went to film school... or you just like good, short horror. Check it all out, good stuff...
Here's a link to an article that was on THR.com and, really, it's just for interests sake... You see, they've cast the major parts for the reinvisioning of "Nightmare on Elm Street" and you're getting "Twilight" actor Kellan Lutz, "Terminator" the TV show's John Connor - Thomas Dekker and Rooney Mara, who are all joining Kyle Gallner, who will be playing the role that Johnny Depp played back in 1984. So, am I the only one who thinks that all these actors are just a bit too good looking to be in this? I thought the same thing with the "Friday the 13th" remake, to be honest. Maybe I just consider myself overwhelmingly average looking, but I always figured that the idea was that the people in these films, the kids of elm street or the kids who visit Camp Crystal Lake, could be anyone - meaning, they could be you. Now, though, it's like they're from The WB. I think having model-like actors just adds to the disconnect between the viewer and the film, but... that could just be me. I usually root for the killer, anyhow.
Here's a wicked article on MediaPost.com called "How Can Independent Video Producers Compete In The Super-Premium Era? ". Now, I know that most people still see the big screen as the Holy Grail of filmmaking, with the small screen (TV) coming in second... however, that should change. I've said it a million times, but if you look at your film as just content and you're just trying to reach eyeballs, the internet is your buddy right now and, one day, it'll be your BFF. Not only that, as we progress, your content will be monetized a lot easier online... (read: you'll make more money with online content) That's not to mention, you'll have complete creative freedom and won't have to worry about being too over-the-top or anything. Anyhow, not only is the article interesting, the few comments at the bottom are interesting, too. The article is talking more from an advertising perspective, like... if you're making a web-based series and are looking to compete with the networks for ad dollars. Good read, though. You should know about this stuff.
Let's dip back into the THR.com well and read another article from them, this one called "Adults Steering Clear of Movies". The long and short is, 'pricey, star-driven thrillers and dramas' are stinking it up at the box office... they use "State of Play" as an example in the article. On the flip side, in these recessionary times, youth oriented films are kicking ass. It's easy math, when you think about it. Adults are worried about jobs, money, mortgages, bills, etc... and, not only are they cutting back, when they're looking for entertainment, it's probably going to be escapist-type stuff: horror, action, sci-fi, etc. Now, kids don't give an F about the recession. They're worried about who's going to buy them beer on the weekend or what brand their MP3 players is. On top of that, they don't care to see 'pricey, star-driven thrillers and dramas', anyhow. They've always been into the escapist stuff. So, if you're a budding screenwriter looking for something to write about right now, think about beefing up the young adult aspects and toning down on the serious stuff.
Lastly, remember those random clips that wound up in my inbox? You know, the ones that are really for the upcoming Donnie Darko film, "S. Darko"? Well, here's the third installment. I gotta say, these were all very well done and this last one really ties it all together. I'm not just saying that because they were done by our buddies at Fewdio, either. Anyhow, here's a link to the first one and here's a link to the second one. Last one is embedded below.
We all know who Platinum Dunes is, right? The production company that was formed in 2001 by Michael Bay, Brad Fuller and Andrew Form? I'll be honest, when they first came out and made it brutally clear that they'd be basically cherry picking some of the most influential horror films from my past and 're-envisioning' them, I was none too happy. Although I prayed for each film to fail and that Platinum Dunes would close up shop, they didn't. Not only that, I hate to admit that my hatred's softening over time. Don't get me wrong, a bit of me died with each announcement. First, with "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in 2003, then "The Amityville Horror", a suspect sequel to "TCM", then "The Hitcher", "The Unborn" and "Friday the 13th". Now, they're slated to remake "Near Dark", they're doing a "Friday the 13th Part 2", "The Birds" and, worst of all, coming out in 2010, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" - which was one of the most influential movies in my life, with one of the most influential characters. By the way, the reason this all came up is because they've picked who's going to play Freddy and, obviously, it isn't Robert Englund. It's none other than Jackie Earle Haley... if that doesn't ring any bells, he played Rorschach in "Watchmen". Here's an article on him getting the role. Anyhow, back to my rant... I'm assuming that you and I are probably on similar pages... like, the movies that influenced you and made you the filmmaker/writer/producer that you are, were made 15 to 25 years ago. You've probably thought, "this new stuff is just not as good as the old stuff" and when a remake comes out, you almost always say, "the original was better". Well, I got to thinking... these remakes aren't really for us. They're for the next generation of horror fans and horror filmmakers/writers/producers. I'll leave out the whole monetary aspect, as that obviously plays a major part, but... consider this: I remember listening to Motley Crue's version of "Helter Skelter", having no idea that it was a remake... then being informed by my father that it was a Beatles song from 20 years earlier and that the original was better. Now, put that experience in the context of me and Platinum Dunes and I'm the old man saying that the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is better. So, I think, in the future, the correct response to someone getting excited about a Platinum Dunes remake should be... "Hmmm... interesting that they're remaking that. You did know that it's a remake, right? I sure hope it's a good movie... You should check out the original when you get a chance and let me know what you think." Then, appreciate the fact that Platinum Dunes is playing a part in keeping horror alive and shaping the horror filmmakers of the next generation. Or is that way too soft?
Here's a link to an interesting article that I read on TheWrap.com called "Coming Soon to Your Flat Screen: Layoff TV". So, what was that movie... or was it just a story? You know... it's in the middle of the Great Depression and the news is all upbeat and fake and it pisses this one filmmaker off. So, he sacrifices everything to make a film with an honest take, with honest characters and after years of sweat, blood and tears, he creates his opus and, when he screens it, everyone hates it. They tell him, "Man, life is depressing enough, we'd rather see some fake, upbeat shit". I'd research that a bit better, but you get the point. There's actually two trains of thought on this. One is, people like escapism during rough times. They want fantastic movies that take them to different worlds and have happy endings. They want to forget about the daily grind and all the depressing things that come with it. The other train of thought is, people don't want to see that shit because they can't identify with the characters. Bad times call for down-to-earth characters with problems and issues. To be honest, this is the type of shit that you need to be thinking about when you're writing - think about your audience (reoccurring theme here, people). Anyhow, this article seems to think that people want escapism on the big screen, while they want realistic, down-to-earth stuff on the small screen. Check it out and think about it when you're writing...
Lastly, I received a very strange link to a video on Youtube, I embedded it below. Check it out...
Okay, I have no idea on how we're going to survive the singularity, but I DO have some ideas on the future of indie horror... which should entertain us until the robots do take over in a few years. I mean, not only is it one of the most asked questions of us... it's also one of the questions we ask the most, "What is the future of indie horror?" We're unwavering in our belief - there's a big, bright shiny future for it. However, a lot of people think that the economics just aren't there. It's a big debate and only time will tell the answer, but keeping that in mind, I'm going to make a couple of not-so-bold statements...
