-
1. Re: Web shows
Bill Hunt Oct 10, 2010 7:13 PM (in response to Christopher Duncan)Without really looking, I rather wrote it off as the Web version of Public Access TV (think Wayne's World here). Maybe I should look closely.
Hunt
-
2. Re: Web shows
JSS1138 Oct 10, 2010 11:13 PM (in response to Christopher Duncan)I've seen the first three episodes of Ark. I must say, it has be interested.
(I'm waiting until Hulu Plus comes to my Sony Blu-ray this fall. Something this well produced needs to be watched in a proper environment.)
-
3. Re: Web shows
Christopher Duncan Oct 11, 2010 10:27 AM (in response to Bill Hunt)Bill,
Part of what I found interesting about this is that there's very much a fuss going on about The Guild, which has served 65 million views thus far, and yet the production values are pretty low budget. Particularly in the first season.
Perhaps in a time when people grow up with camcorders and watching YouTube videos, it's possible to build a significant audience without a multimillion dollar budget. Personally I prefer to see high caliber, pro quality work. Ultimately, however, it all comes down to what the audience is enthusiastic about.
While the entire entertainment industry has been in controlled meltdown since the advent of the web and piracy / file sharing, it's ironically the best time ever to be a creative creature. If you have art within you and want to get it to the masses, you no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars per hour to that big recording facility down the road or ask permission of the major radio / TV networks to broadcast your work. You can buy a decent computer & camera, Adobe tools, and reach millions. I find that inspirational.
Of course, making a living at it is an entirely different conversation.
-
4. Re: Web shows
Christopher Duncan Oct 11, 2010 10:33 AM (in response to JSS1138)Jim,
I'll have to put Ark on my list. Another one you might enjoy is Sanctuary. It's some expatriots of Stargate SG-1, shot in Red with a lot of high quality green screen work, etc.
It was initially done as a webisode format on a dedicated site with plans on making money via subscriptions, etc. However, in an interview I saw with Amanda Tapping (producer), she said that everyone raved about it, gave it great reviews, and instantly pirated it across the world. She observied that it was pretty much impossible to monetize, so when the cable companies started calling (Sy Fy, I think) they said, "Hey, let's just go back to what we know so we can make some money on this" and thus ended the webisode adventure.
I think they might have been able to make money through advertising, as that's one of the few business models on the web that actually has legs. In any event, you have to assume that if you put out digital content, it will be immediately stolen and thus build a business model that can survive that harsh reality. If the whole web series thing gains traction, I suspect it will be ad dollars fueling it. But hey, that's worked for traditional media for decades, so I see nothing wrong with it.
-
5. Re: Web shows
Bill Hunt Oct 11, 2010 1:16 PM (in response to Christopher Duncan)I understand, especially about the distribution of artistic work. Going way, way back, we had a motion picture series, that was a compilation of "thesis" films, mostly graduate, and from several film schools around the US (some from Europe too). The distribution was limited, but we were fortunate to have access. Most movie viewers, around the globe, were not so lucky. Some was pretty bleak, but then there were others, that were spectacular and intriguing. The Web now offers access to many, many more. There WILL be dreck, but then there should be a few gems too. Just gotta' go in with an open mind and expect to have to pick through the "chaff."
Maybe it's time to open my mind a bit more. In my youth, I seemed to be more inquisitive.
Hunt
-
6. Re: Web shows
Christopher Duncan Oct 11, 2010 2:38 PM (in response to Bill Hunt)Yeah, but in your youth, you couldn't afford the really good wine.
-
7. Re: Web shows
Bill Hunt Oct 11, 2010 9:17 PM (in response to Christopher Duncan)Chris,
You are SO correct. I can still recall a conversation with my then young wife, regarding a Bordeaux that was about US$8/btl. My response was that I would never consider such a wine with a normal dinner. Well, times have changed, and I wish that I had bought 4 cases of that '70 Ch. Latour, at US$8/btl. Who knew? I revisited that very wine some years ago, and it was one of the ultimate Bordeaux wines, that I have ever had. Now, back then, I did not have a cellar for such wines, so I would probably have "killed" a great wine, just due to storage. If you happen to have 4 cases of that wine, stored properly, I will pay US$96/btl. now, and store it properly.
Back then, Lancer's was considered a "fine wine." Now, well let's not go into that, please.
Hunt
-
8. Re: Web shows
JSS1138 Oct 11, 2010 11:09 PM (in response to Christopher Duncan)Personally I prefer to see high caliber, pro quality work. Ultimately, however, it all comes down to what the audience is enthusiastic about.
Got that right. Otherwise that disaster of a series "The Office" would never have made it past the Pilot.
-
9. Re: Web shows
JSS1138 Oct 11, 2010 11:11 PM (in response to Christopher Duncan)It's some expatriots of Stargate SG-1
Cast and Crew, or characters? (I never much cared for the movie or the series.)
-
10. Re: Web shows
JSS1138 Oct 11, 2010 11:14 PM (in response to Bill Hunt)There WILL be dreck, but then there should be a few gems too.
Like a rare and precious metal beneath a ton of rock
It takes some time and trouble to separate from the stock
You sometimes have to listen to a lot of useless talk- Neil Peart
-
11. Re: Web shows
Todd_Kopriva Oct 12, 2010 8:56 AM (in response to JSS1138)I read this thread with interest beyond that which I have as an Adobe employee. Why? This is why:
http://www.cautionzero.net/cherub-season-two/
... and this:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Coffee-Table/147106551991536
(And so on.)
Yes, this is what my friends and I do with our evenings and weekends. We make web video series.
It's amazing what you can do with almost no money and some really talented stage actors. Our secret weapon is that almost all of the people involed are also part of a live theater company. We've got lots of actors, set builders, prop makers, and so on in our little circle of friends and acquaintances.
One of the things that I've learned from working on these things is that most web video series need to be judged in the context in which they were made---or, rather, with regard for _why_ they were made. They're often just a bunch of friends having fun together. Making money or getting a large audience outside of a niche group is rarely the point.
-
12. Re: Web shows
Christopher Duncan Oct 12, 2010 12:52 PM (in response to JSS1138)Cast / crew. Completely unrelated story.
-
13. Re: Web shows
Christopher Duncan Oct 12, 2010 12:58 PM (in response to Todd_Kopriva)A vampire with bunny slippers? Oh, I just have to watch that. Thanks for the links, looking forward to it.
Sounds like you hang with a great group. And I know what you mean about the why. Even after I quit playing music for a living, I still played gigs, did guitar in the round parties, play around in the recording studio, etc. just for the joy of doing so. Of course, I do love having an audience, the bigger the better. However, that's more about the enjoyment of performing than any crazy idea about making money with this stuff.
If you're in the arts in any capacity, rule number one is simple: have fun!
-
14. Re: Web shows
able123 Oct 12, 2010 4:06 PM (in response to Christopher Duncan)--------------
Personally I prefer to see high caliber, pro quality work. Ultimately, however, it all comes down to what the audience is enthusiastic about
----------------------
pro work....I have a recent example. Map sent to me via email to get to work tomorrow by contruction grip...
My response....which I sent via email and adds value to the map....
the real map
thats pro work for ya !
-
15. Re: Web shows
able123 Oct 12, 2010 5:12 PM (in response to able123)sorry, I didnt read the whole thread when I posted my stupid map thing...
I dont know what to think about the business models ( if thats the phrase) re: entertainment media ( projection, tv movies, episodic ),except that its obvious some great stuff gets made outside the mainstream sometimes ( and sometimes makes a great impression, people like it a lot, and also makes some money to pay back what people put in ). as I work in the mainstream "crew" end of it I often have the attitude ( I'm sorry but its about me paying rent too, putting food on table )..if you cant afford to shoot movie in nyc "dont come to nyc".
I know that sounds harsh, but there ARE low budget ( east coast council ) jobs that get done for WAYY less than scale wages here, and the "give back" so to speak...is that , lets say you make a flat rate of $120/day for a 12 hour day as a grip...if the movie makes money on distribution a percentage of the profits go to pay that crew member a "bump" up in the wage ...retroactively...
sooo, this is based on big profits as opposed to just making a little profit...and if the movie makes big profit a portion of that goes to bump up the wages of those that sorta "invested" in it by working for less than union minimum scale wage ...on the project.
the problem sometimes with that is the producer can legally sell the product and rights when a distributer is interested ( the international distributer now buys the product ) and is no longer beholden to the contract of the original producer. so the crew doesnt make any more money even if the product does very well. thats only the negative aspect and is based somewhat on the integrity of the original production company, obviously.
so methods to try and incorporate low budget stuff with less wages and hopeful distribution is sometimes stymied by that sort of bad vibes...with east coast council jobs. you can look that up on the web..its a consortium of many many locals and so on to try to actually boost the making of lower budget projects. doesnt get much press.
the monetizing of stuff is in my mind just simply the reality of paying for some things to make the product and getting at least that back or youre gonna run out of money pretty quick. dont matter how you get it back..tickets, ads, whatever...somehow you just cant keep paying for stuff out of your pocket and make cool stuff and not get anything back, unless youre like super rich...and dont need to get it back.
Rod
ps...re: crew wages... we work basically "freelance" and dont work all year round, or get paid vacations, sick days, etc...we are like freelance people , not staff people...
If you are really really strong and can work 12-14 hour days on movies for an entire year straight you are pretty much maxed out physically no matter what your age..and your "family" life is also maxed out...like you dont have time with wife and children basically...
Nobody in this biz... I mean nobody....works the whole year round...so whatever wages are made is really based on a lot of overtime and on average is probably equivalent to a staff job ( office job - 40 hr week ) of 6-8 months. There's no way anyone ( I dont care how famous or great they are ) works the entire year... soooo, if I make so and so per week ( with all the overtime )...that DOES NOT mean I make that through the entire year by any means....it's physically impossible.....you will end up killing yourself in no time doing that....
And that's another issue...doing this for a living....instead of thinking, "oh what fun, I'll work on a movie"....it's like, "oh, what fun, I can do what I love , work on movies, and actually make a living for a long time, and have a family "....
this is important only to those who imagine there is some level of skill and generations of passed down knowledge accorded to the people who actually work on movies ....it means absolutely nothing to someone who wants to make one movie and move on with their lives...
ranting...time to relax and think about finding the dragons treasure in steven speilbergs or somebody elses new "gold coast studio" tomorrow on Long Island... according to the map recieved re: work tomorrow...
-
16. Re: Web shows
able123 Oct 12, 2010 5:44 PM (in response to able123)I got an email back while I was posting here...re: my embellishments to the "map" sent to me..and was informed , " You are in the ballpark...see you tomorrow "... so I got THAT going for me !
-
17. Re: Web shows
Bill Hunt Oct 12, 2010 7:50 PM (in response to able123)Now, just make sure that the streets ARE restricted, so that when you are shooting a chase scene for Transformers XX0V, some cop SUV does not flatten "Bumblebee." It seems to be getting harder to film a chase scene without killing a bunch of folk.
I think that you map to the Troll's Treasure is a good one. Maybe the Trolls placed their 401K's in Goldman-Sachs. Or perhaps they contacted Goldline, for a "gold-backed IRA." Wiley Trolls...
Hunt
-
18. Re: Web shows
Christopher Duncan Oct 12, 2010 8:20 PM (in response to able123)Rod,
I share a lot of your sentiments. I used to make a living as a musician, have written books and also spent years developing software - all methods of getting paid for my creativity. Consequently, I think that if someone is pursuing their art for a living and doesn't want to work for free, they should darned well be paid (and paid well, too!).
That said, being a grip is a little different than playing guitar. I might want to go hang out at a party, have a couple of beers and play a few songs just because it's fun - no payment required. But it's unlikely that I'd ever want to bust my tail doing demanding physical labor "for fun." While I don't doubt that you enjoy what you do for a living (or you'd be doing something else), it doesn't translate to the web series stuff in terms of working on a project for pure creative fulfullment. So chances are good you wouldn't want to work for free as a grip on a low budget project that wasn't going to make any money. And why should you? There's no upside for you.
On the other hand, oh mechanical canine who chases snakes and plays with red cameras, you doubtless understand the concept of creativity for fun. That's why you're screwing around with all this Adobe stuff.
-
19. Re: Web shows
Christopher Duncan Oct 12, 2010 8:22 PM (in response to Bill Hunt)Bill,
My first quick read of your post came out, "does not flatten Bambi."
As you can imagine, I now have visions of Bambi Meets Godzilla spinning through my brain.
"Oh, no - there goes Tokyo..."
-
20. Re: Web shows
JSS1138 Oct 12, 2010 10:21 PM (in response to able123)"dont come to nyc".
If that's your location, it's definitely close enough for us to work together with the RED.
You gettin' the hang of that thing yet?
-
21. Re: Web shows
able123 Oct 13, 2010 6:56 PM (in response to JSS1138)found stage location for 7am call with lord of the rings type map with no problem...( whew )
telling stories and so on ( artistic expression to share life experience ? ) is cool...music ( especially at a party for free ), is amazing how resilient people are individually and in groups to keep that alive. is human. thank goodness.
-------
Jim, have to test more stuff on camera re: formats ( 4k 2:1, 4k hd, 4k anna )...only did 4k 2:1 so far.
plus test my own meters and color /grayscale charts outside without looking at monitor while shooting, tons of tests to do yet...
camera only has one lens... 18 - 50mm... and no follow focus, zoom control, matte box with fiters....
am working on getting it back after the 18th to test some more stuff...probably will be a lot more aware of what this "package" can do after that.
my first tests with it was more about what to do to use MY computer and CS3 to deal with footage...conversions etc.
-
22. Re: Web shows
JSS1138 Oct 13, 2010 8:57 PM (in response to able123)The stuff you're missing probably wouldn't be needed for the stuff I shoot anyway.
Keep on practicing.








