1 Reply by alexishere

(74 replies, posted in Episodes)

Trey, I liked your comment in the podcast about how Mike/Brian/Teague should be concerned that their peers don't see the work they do as deserving of being paid for. Do you have any theories or suggestions on how that trend could be turned around on a broader scale?

Sometimes Reddit (or the internet at large) gets a hard on for supporting a particular independent artist like Louis CK, but that occasional burst of enthusiasm is far from the norm. Likewise Radiohead might do okay out of a "pay what you want" scheme but clearly as Squiggly quoted with "World of Goo" that doesn't always work either.

I feel like data is going to get shared, and fighting to contain it on the tech front seems almost futile. As long as people feel that piracy is culturally and socially acceptable, they're going to find a way. So how could we potentially turn this wave around on the societal level?

What if watching (or showing others) a pirated film at home carried with it a similar social stigma to not tipping a waiter, or showing up at a party without bringing any food or drinks?

What if you could connect the consumer with the artist/production team in such a way that it felt awkward to not pay them for what you were receiving?

I'm imagining perhaps a public register of 'contributors' to a film or project, where people can electronically pay say $10 and get their name (or message?) on that list for the world to see. Sounds like an unnecessary hassle when most people just want to consume and forget about it though.

Go to forum: Episodes

2 Reply by alexishere

(8 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Hey thanks for all the suggestions guys!

I'll definitely be sending some emails through to Ubuntu and Apple, to get a feel for whether I could use those (Ubuntu would actually make sense for a tech savvy character), and the litestep/window blinds is a good option if those don't go anywhere!

Go to forum: Off Topic

3 Topic by alexishere

(8 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Hey guys,

I'm about to start shooting a film project which requires a bunch of computer/phone interface insert shots scattered throughout. Basic stuff like smart phone calls/SMSs. Some operating system stuff on a laptop (engaging a proxy/VPN, for example) as well as some basic web browsing.

Since I'm aiming to treat the film-world as realistically as (dramatically) possible, that rules out Mark Coleran-esque stuff, as cool as it is. And since I'm not going to be getting the sign off from Apple/MS/whoever else, I don't think I can get away with using real stuff since it's too much of a legal minefield.

Ideally, I'd just reconstruct the OSX interface in After Effects, replace any overtly notable elements (logos, icons, aqua-bubble progress and scroll bars) and animate the specific events and cursor activity. The only problem is, I'm not sure how far I'd need to take it, to not be considered an infringement. Likewise for the Google search results page.

I was thinking... all I want, is to have a computer (and phone) interface that resembles what we're used to, but doesn't contravene copyright. And then it occurred to me, does perhaps something like this already exist - an open source skin for Linux or the Android OS, or even something like Windowblinds that I can use and shoot a real machine?

Or alternatively, does there exist pre-made generic OS interfaces (like people use for iphone app design) in PSD form which could be animated from as a base, without right restrictions?

Sorry for the ramble but I just thought I'd throw this out there and see if anyone here has encountered and dealt with something like this!

Go to forum: Off Topic

4 Reply by alexishere

(11 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Good call iJim and those kind of options are definitely the sort of things I'm going to look into.

I think at this stage it really comes down to the sort of dollars that places like Netflix can afford to pay, and if it's viable for them. I'll report back with my research when I get somewhere with it, if people are interested.

Go to forum: Off Topic

5 Reply by alexishere

(11 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Thanks for the thoughts guys.

I realise that not every studio film lands on McDonalds cups, just that they have that breadth of cross promotion when they need it. That's a really interesting point about lack of product placement in period dramas, the thought had never occurred to me.

Would be interesting to hear Dorkman or Trey's thoughts on this, as I gather they have battled this terrain in the past, or are now. I'm in the process of working out a deal with a private investor for an approx. USD $100k Super16mm feature that I've written, and I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the distribution world before I construct the contracts etc.

I'm not writing Star Wars but I'd hate to leave out the modern day internet distribution equivalent of the "merchandise clause".

Go to forum: Off Topic

6 Reply by alexishere

(11 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Paulou: Funny you mention it, I read that book recently and found it fascinating - looking forward to the updated version. If you haven't checked out Epstein's other books he covers some great stuff - how Debeers dominates the diamond trade, how the Rockefellers reinvented their shady past with a huge PR push and so forth.

Brian: Thanks for the detailed response, some great points there. I'm guessing you meant "more eggs in fewer baskets", ie. they're taking bigger gambles on individual projects. Makes sense in the context of big business wanting to play bigger hands.

I haven't done the research to see which of his are studio or independently funded, but I remember reading something where Cronenberg was discussing his process of finding "some rich guy to invest". I wonder if that approach can make sense for the 5-20million range when dealing with (somewhat) proven quantities like him. Woody Allen, Coen brothers etc seem to be able to make fairly cheap (relatively speaking) films that presumably do okay. Although 'A Serious Man' for 7million isn't really a bargain if it bombs.

I've been thinking a similar thing with regard to the Netflix debacle - seems pretty risky to set a fixed price-point for such a huge customer base, without really having any control over the cost of their inputs (content). Netflix instant isn't (technically) available where I am, although I was thinking that in a hypothetical world where every piece of media content on the planet was available through some kind of 'super netflix' and your 50USD/month subscription was just divided between all of the things you watched, could that actually work?

Assuming everyone played ball and watched everything through the portal, for reasons of social expectation or whatever, it would act as a sort of 'media content levy' across the whole internet.

Interesting stuff though guys, look forward to hearing other peoples' thoughts.

Go to forum: Off Topic

7 Topic by alexishere

(11 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Hey guys,

Long time listener, first time poster. I always enjoy hearing your opinions on films, especially the LA tidbits that you don't tend to get while working overseas.

I often discuss the topic subject with friends of mine who work in various facets of production, but since none of them are specifically on the money side of feature films we never seem to be able to get a clear answer. I was hoping that the combined experience at DIF could shed some light on it.

This is a very broad topic so I'll try to keep this as organised as possible. Here are some general assumptions I'm working from (feel free to dispute):

1) Individual studio films don't technically turn a profit, the studios operate on a 'fee' system and extract money in that way. "There is no net" etc.

2) The studios, while no longer owning theatres, still benefit from 'internalising costs' by owning their own distribution arms. Buena Vista with Disney etc.

3) The studios themselves have been absorbed into massive conglomerates.

4) The majority of studio revenues now come from non-theatrical sources. Domestic/worldwide TV, DVD, merchandise etc. Hence the increasing focus on proven brand names and garnering broad international appeal.

5) Most films (studio or otherwise) on an individual basis, lose money.

6) Independent films are financed by ordinary (wealthy) people, who don't enjoy the risk-hedging abilities of the studios (who produce slates of films), or the benefits of owning their own distribution chain.


I'll apologise halfway through for the long post but hopefully it takes the conversation somewhere interesting - here are my questions:

a) Do the film studios actually make any significant positive financial impact on their conglomerated owners? Or are they kept around just so those companies can maintain a foothold in the media/PR sphere?** I've been told that the actual end-of-the-day profits of the big studios are nothing to write home about.

b) If the vast majority of films lose money, why are there still so many privately invested independent films? Is it really just wealthy people splashing money for the glamour of the business and bragging rights?

c) When DVD/BluRay collapse, where do you see the future of film financing/distribution revenue? Netflix/iTunes?

While I imagine that Netflix/iTunes may be a nice bonus cheque for films which already exist, it seems too meagre to sustain even modest production budgets with it as the only revenue stream.

I also understand that creative works like music and books (which are relatively inexpensive to produce, financially speaking), may thrive on the Kindlestore/iTunes, unfortunately movies are orders of magnitude more expensive to make. And no, Canon 5Ds don't change that. It also appears that torrent piracy is becoming increasingly prevalent and (more disappointingly) socially acceptable.

It seems like a shame, because I feel like with the technology advancements in post-production especially, we could be seeing a bunch more smart and well produced films that sit under a million dollar budget. I don't know, however, that they'd be able to be marketed in a way that actually encouraged savvy viewers to pay for them.

In other words, are films ultimately now just aimed at those too stupid to know how to steal?

I hope some of you managed to get all the way through that post, and look forward to hearing what you guys have to say!

** I'm reminded of an interesting interview with the director of Hitch on the subject of product placement. He mentions that his "boss" (GE) doesn't really care about film or the film industry, they make fighter jets and power plants.

Go to forum: Off Topic