Thoughts on Shane Smith

In today's article, Shane Smith echo's thoughts I've had about the insane costs associated with film/TV production and the high percentage of bad movies and cancelled TV shows created by the current process.

That's exactly why I'm looking at Lean Startup techniques, trying to get the batting average up. I truly believe there has to be a way to scientifically test ideas in the marketplace early in development and fine-tune from there.

Ref: http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/shane-smith-tv-and-film-production-costs-dont-make-sense-in-the-digital-era-1201416728/

Upvoting loglines

What about a website where you upvote loglines? Actually, now that I think about it, I've seen that before. Could be useful in a general way to gauge interest but I think there's inherent problems:

1. They're not paying customers. 
2. There's no reason for them to be on the site. What do they "get" for upvoting a logline? It's a game. No risk, no reward. 

You'd need large numbers of people on the site. Voting on loglines isn't as fun as an "am I hot or not" voting site. 

And without risk (pay) you're not truly tracking behavior, you're tracking perceived behavior. What people think they would pay money to see. 

Crowdfunding with Peter Diamandis

Listened to the Tim Ferriss / Peter Diamandis podcast today and it got me interested in crowdfunding as a possible resource for testing new material, prior to production.

Previously I had been opposed to crowdfunding, because I don't like the idea of people paying for a product, which they have to buy again later. 

But... it could be an excellent way to market test film ideas at the script stage, or earlier. I imagine posting a trailer with the highlights, a short breakdown of the story, and then offer to buy the film for $5. 

If enough people buy it, then it gets made. If not, the money gets refunded.

Quote from the interview, regarding crowdfunding:

You get to find out not only does the world want it, but in-fact, what color, what size, what shape. And it's the most honest vote you can. Who cares what a monkey survey says, it's when people put their credit card down and vote with their wallet. That's what really matters. 

It's zero dilution, you test your marketplace, you get out in front, and more importantly you build a community.  

Doesn't that sound like something that could (and should) be applied towards independent filmmaking?

Source: Tim Ferriss Podcast 

THR Directors Roundtable

Quote from Richard Linklater:

This is a storytelling medium. I really see that now. I used to feel called to make films, it was all about about cinema. It's really just storytelling. 

Angelina Jolie favorite director: Sydney Lumet, in particular The Hill (1965) and his directing book. The Hill is also a great favorite of Nolan and his follow-up recommendation is The Offence (1972)

Christopher Nolan favorite directors: George Lucas, Ridley Scott

Mike Leigh recommendation. The Tree of Wooden Clogs (1978) - Ermanno Olmi. Shot, directed, edited himself, without stars.

Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkh982zFm8

Ryan Holiday on Twitter

I loved some of what Ryan Holiday tweeted today. My thoughts exactly, and I see direct analogies to independent film production and self-distribution.

@RyanHoliday 

And bookstores and publishers are notorious for missing huge potential audiences. Write it yourself and make all the $$

The Great Gatsby got rejected THREE times...and that was by white male editors. It takes force of will & now self-pub.

The industry bias is an opportunity for authors--to make good work and OWN it

Who buys the first 1,000 copies? Answer that question and you can publish anything--permission not required

The main bias is not cultural or race. It's inability to see new trends at all

actually have a potential advantage in terms of first 1k copies. Writing for "everyone" is a mistake most authors make

When the book is good, it spreads. When people buy, publishers/authors follow. 50 Shades of Grey was self-pub

Authors ALWAYS have to force their books down people's throats to start--especially when they are doing something new

Authors think they compete with each other. Really they compete for attention period. Really you need outlets to promote

Books sell on self-interest (word of mouth) not because publishers. The answer is there

But my point is like EVERY good book ever had that said about it

The people who tell you that are just guessing. The sales will come from your effort alone

One of my clients (a white guy) who sold 4M books was rejected by 25 publishers. Nobody knows. So push ahead

The other problem is people forget foreign markets. You don't have to write for America. China is pretty big

Publishers publish what they think will sell. Problem is they're wrong a lot. It's on authors to fix bad assumptions

Wrong a lot AND hard headed. But that's good: look at Tyler Perry, he owns his own studio because no one got it

There's good money in foreign editions too.

Filmmaking by committee

I struggled today, trying to explain the basics of this process to a friend. The common criticism being, "That's simply filmmaking by committee." The difference is, filmmaking by committee would be giving each audience member a vote, and going with the option that gets the most votes. Instead, Lean Filmmaking would be using the audience as a barometer for what's working and what's not, and then using that information to make calculated changes that you feel that will better the final film.

Example being stand-up comedy. Comedians routinely talk about writing new material at home and not knowing how it's going to do, until they try out the material on stage. Over many months on the road, they hone the new material, trimming, rewording, rephrasing, moving elements around, or attacking the subject in an entirely different way to achieve the desired result of a happy audience. No one would say that the comedians material is written by committee. But it is honed and fine tuned by audience participation. That's the same process I'd like to co-opt for indie film.

When the audience doesn't respond to a scene or part of the film in the way you want, you don't automatically give each audience member a vote as to what would make the scene work better - because they have  no idea. And you don't automatically appeal to the lowest common denominator either. It simply means that you, as the filmmaker, haven't communicated effectively, and need to make an adjustment. You have found a problem, which you need to fix. This is extremely valuable information to have, especially pre-production. This can literally save millions, and make a break a film.

I know filmmakers that have spent $100,000 making their dream indie film, which was made in a bubble, without audience feedback - and at the end of the day, after submitting to film festivals and not getting picked up, they have a VERY expensive DVD sitting on their shelf. That's not a gamble I'm willing to make with my money, on my first movie, and I truly believe there's a better process for independent film. Get feedback early on, before production, and adjust the storytelling where necessary.

That's crux of this process is: gathering more information than traditionally, testing hypothesis about the material either via short films, webisodes, live theater, or other with yet to be determined means,  and find out if audiences respond to your material. If they don't respond, you've saved a hell of a lot of time and money. As opposed to "testing" your hypothesis with a fully produced final film, released into the general public, which generally costs tens of millions of dollars.

 

The Great Gatsby

Fitzgerald tested his material in short stores that preceded Great Gatsby.

• Dice, Brass Knuckles & Guitar, 1923


• The Sensible Things, 1924


• Winter Dreams, 1922


• Absolution, 1924

That's a similar process for what I'd like to do with feature films, test material in a thoughtful and scientific (measurable) way with short films. To see if a feature film would be viable. This should save lots of time and money.