Celtx 1.0 Released

Storyboard
Image by isaleal

Looks like the folks at Celtx have come out with version 1.0. This is a tool for screenwriters of all stripes, and it’s FREE! I’ve been playing with Celtx for a while, and I like what I see.

Review will certainly follow. I’d love to test their theory that this can help people creating non-traditional media (podcasts, games, comics).

Anybody who Legally Downloads Music is an Idiot…

Steadicam Operator
Photo by Carolyn Coles

That’s what record store owner John Kioussis told Steve Guttenberg of The Audiophiliac.

Do you agree with Kioussis? Is legal digital music so bad that it’s not worth obeying the law?

Certainly there have been arguments made that draconian DRM has limited the appeal of legal sources for downloaded music. If media owners and creators do not or cannot provide their media in a format which meets consumer needs, the consumers will find an alternative source for that media.

Consumers in the digital age expect to have flexibility in when, how, and where they consume their media. The popularity of DVRs is driven by the desire to watch programs when it is convenient for the consumer instead of when the broadcaster decides to air it. Podcasting allows consumers to choose when and where to watch or listen. DRM that locks media to a particular device or method of viewing limits the consumer’s choice and, ultimately, pushes some percentage of those users to seek out less regulated formats of the same content, or other content entirely.

There are also the issues of fidelity. A 128kbps MP3 is not the same quality as a 44,100 Hz audio CD. Most legal sources of downloadable music don’t offer lossless file formats (excepting a notable few). There are, however, lossless file formats, such as FLAC, that are extremely popular among concert bootleggers. Thus, fidelity is another justification used by downloaders who choose alternatives to the legal avenues of music distribution.

As for John Kioussis? The rest of that quote is “You can get it for free, why pay for it? Download it illegally, who’s going to catch you? Legal or illegal, they sound the same.”

Regardless of getting caught or not, the best reason to find a legal option is to support the hard work of the artist(s) who created the media that you are enjoying. After all, without continued support, artists wouldn’t be able to continue to produce their art (excluding the independently wealthy and famously successful minority).

Traditional record deals don’t benefit the artists nearly as much as they do the studios, but changes in technology are bringing about a new wave of digital distribution options that allow artists to cut out the middlemen and connect directly (or in a manner closely approximating directly) with their fans.

So, if you want your favorite artists to keep producing art, maybe downloading music legally doesn’t make you an idiot. In fact, by searching out sites that offer the best deals to artists and supporting them, you can help shape the landscape of direct media and further the trend of direct connections from Artist to Fan.

Planning ahead. . .

Steadicam Operator
Photo by Reinis Traidas

One of the things I’ve learned in two years of production is that no two shoots are ever, ever, ever the same.

Before you go into production, it helps to not only visualize the scene you’re trying to create inside your camera, but also the scene on set. Who will play what role? What “props” do you need? (A table is really helpful for snacks, a couple chairs are awesome for tired actors and directors). Does it really make sense for a sound guy to be there if the whole set-up for the day is a single actor and a boom? Can you dismiss your costumer halfway through the day, or will that mean that someone’s bowtie gets droopy?

On our shoots, everyone is expected to be “helpful.” This means that if you’re standing next to the extension cord, you can be the one to hand it to the director (whether you are sound, costumes, an AP or an actor). Nobody is anybody’s “assistant.” The Associate Producer is expected to do 99% of the administrative tasks (the three M’s: Money, Meals, Mistakes – Mapquest would make four). When I was an intern for a small production house, I made up a “shoot kit” for the AP’s. Basically, I bought a plastic tool box, and filled it with all the things you might need on a shoot:

– office supplies (envelopes, pens, scissors)
– first aid supplies
– gaffers tape
– clipboards
– a slate
– white paper (for white balance)
– extra tape stock

Most importantly, I stuck in a list of what belongs in there so that it can be restocked as needed. I would always rather be freakishly organized than lose shoot hours to a pointless pen hunt.

Akiva Goldsman says. . .

This weekend, as a part of the reunion/commencement ceremonies at my alma mater, I got to see Akiva Goldsman talk about life as an Oscar-winning screenwriter. I also got to see a certain presidential candidate, but I’m going to be a good blogger and stay on topic.

I’ve seen a lot of writers come back and give advice to the masses. Goldsman talked a lot about failure. He was a failed novelist, a mostly-failed textbook writer, and he happened to, by accident, sell the first screenplay he ever wrote. His advice was, in a nutshell: “Write write write write write write write. And then write.”

Someone asked him about going to Hollywood. He said that Hollywood was a club of “about 500 people, with everyone trying to make sure it’s not 501.” He advised aspiring filmmakers, writers, and actors to develop their skills elsewhere, and then bring those skills with them. He said that LA was no place to find yourself – you have to bring something to the table to have success.

The talk reminded me why I chose a small market like Boston, where I can form bonds with people at all levels of the production process. I once was trying to coordinate a shoot with a woman in LA, who tried to get me to sum up where I wanted to be in 5 years. I gave her a very vague, philosophical answer, and she said “No. You need to KNOW now. Do you want to be a technical director? A location manager? What?” I’m lucky enough that I’ve been a location manager, a script supervisor, a producer, an editor. . . all from the same desk chair. I should hope that if I ever get to make money solely as a writer or producer, knowing the whole process from start to finish will serve me well.

I want my MTV, I mean. . . YouTube

Weezer is just so cool. . .

They made a video that’s a super impressive mash-up of every YouTube trend in the last year. Some of these are reproductions, but many appear to have been shot with the original YouTube “stars.” In fact, those people have their own videos about being on set with Weezer, or promoting the new Weezer album.

Congrats to Weezer for figuring out how to work an existing system, rather than push against it. This is a HUGE improvement over bands that have allowed fans to compete to make the “official” video (Tori Amos had two such contests). Those contests push against the flow of information. If 25 fans make videos, hardcore fans will watch all 25, and non-fans will probably watch. . . none. Weezer (or whoever came up with this concept) is going to suck in people who have no clue who they are (if you’re 14 today, the Blue Album is 18 days older than you). So while you probably didn’t blast “In the Garage” with the windows down on your way to watch the X-Files, you probably have seen “Evolution of Dance” and “Chocolate Rain.” And if you haven’t, you can watch them all instantly, and get in on the joke.

That’s probably the greatest power that YouTube has. The “ooh, come look at this!” factor is unparalleled in any other media. I guess you could also call that “viral,” but I’m starting to dislike the negative connotation of the word. It doesn’t really express the inside-joke factor, or the psychic reward when you pick up on a trend before anyone else.

Also, the new Weezer song isn’t half bad. . .

Can you wear leggings with that?

So, the Producer’s post got me thinking. First of all, thanks to SXSW for the shoutout! Second of all. . .

I read this article in the NY Times a while ago. To sum up: Steve and Barry’s is setting out to be the cheapest, most fashionable chain store ever created. They’re using celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker to design fashionable outfits that sell for less than $9. Are these guys going to put Chanel and Oscar de la Renta out of business? No way. They’re doing the same thing that the big studios are doing right now: Taking the most popular trends from high fashion (or its most popular public faces) and co-opting them for the masses. Warner Brothers, Paramount and the other studios seem to be angling to be the Target and Walmart of new media: You like Steve Carrell in that arty Little Miss Sunshine movie? More Steve Carrell! Steve Carrell for everyone!

Now, the difficulty here is that everyone, absolutely everyone, needs shirts and pants. The content of those shirts and pants (color, cut, pattern) is all up for grabs. So if Target can make cheap shirts and pants that look like something out of Sex and the City, then that starts to look like a pretty good deal. However, not everyone needs movies. Not everyone enjoys movies (I know, I’m as shocked as you). So what happens when the economy is a bit shaky, and people start thinking that their $9 is better spent at Steve and Barry’s than at Landmark Cinemas?

Vaudeville. If you were around in the 1890’s, and you went to the theater, you could see a vaudeville show consisting of comedy, drama, dance, music and some seriously weird stuff (does this remind anyone of the CW’s Monday night lineup?) – it was affordable for the middle class, and acts traveled all over the country. There were people whose acts inspired the same kind of fannish devotion as any modern-day Miley Cyrus. But the advent of this cheaper form of entertainment called “film,” plus that nasty financial incident in the fall of 1929, forced theaters to turn into movie palaces. Vaudeville’s best talent headed for Hollywood. If this interests you, PBS put out a really good documentary on vaudeville for American Masters.

Film didn’t kill theater. It just changed the nature of the theater-going experience. Now it’s unlikely you’ll see variety shows trying to attract a mass audience. Theaters had to adapt to appeal to a specialized audience. Target hasn’t killed high fashion, either.

Are films going to die? No. Art doesn’t die. It gets chopped up, rehashed and made into a collage somewhere else. Just like fashion – everything comes back into vogue eventually. When technology gets ahead of the curve of theory and critique, people get all agitated. Right now, nobody is reviewing YouTube videos in the New York Times. No academics have cannonized it, no critics have turned it into a comparison-fest. In vaudeville, there were some trashy, mind-blowingly stupid acts roaming around the country. But what we remember now are the geniuses – the people who influenced generations to come.

Eventually, we’re going to see great art, really great narrative art, come out of these weird little platforms. I agree fully with the Producer: It’s a great time to experiment and make something new.

Presenting Your Message

Image by Andres Rueda
Image by Andres Rueda

Picture an advertisement for a cash back rewards credit card. A couple of months ago, this card was offering 5% cash back for the first 3 months and then 1% after that. Now they are offering 1% cash back and a 20% bonus on all cash back earned in the first year.

Which of these deals sounds better?

Many people will say the second one, because the percentage is higher, and the time period is longer. But take another look at what is actually being said.

20% on all cash back earned. So effectively 1.2% on purchases for the year. The first offer gave an average of 2% cash back in the first year, assuming evenly-spaced spending, and the new offer gives only 1.2%.

What lesson can you take away from this? How you present your message is almost as important as what the message says.

Metcalfe’s Law

Andrew Chen has a post about Metcalfe’s Law and corollary Eflactem’s Law (M-E-T-C-A-L-F-E backwards, you can probably figure this one out).

“In fact, you see this happen all the time at dinner parties or events. Things are great until one or two people announce the intention to leave. If those folks are fun and entertaining, there’s an immediate realization that the quality of the experience is about to go down. And yet more people announce their intention to leave, and so on, until you are left with the party hosts and a big mess ;-)” 

Essentially, he posits that while adding a user increases value exponentially, losing users shrinks value by the same order.

Anna and I were discussing this phenomenon:

Anna: Awww, the Friendster party hosts must be so sad.
Teague: (laughs) Yeah.
Anna: It’s such a sad mental image, ’cause it was like they had this sort of okay party with Bud Light and Sun Chips but then Facebook came along with its local microbrew and cru de te and it was all over.

Democritization of Technology is Not a Problem

Mike Curtis of HD for Indies recently wrote a piece titled The very, very serious problem with democratization of technology in moviemaking. I am a regular reader of Mike’s blog and I generally find him to be very insightful, but on the premise of this article I must respectfully disagree. He mentions that this is a rough draft, so I won’t nitpick it, but I will say that the article primarily focuses on the difficulties faced by current industry players who insist on maintaining the status quo.

I would suggest Mike pick up a copy of “The Long Tail” by Chris Anderson and then take another shot at his draft. The “trouble” isn’t caused by more production and the same number of buyers and technology isn’t a problem. Technology has changed the entire economy of entertainment (among others). Attention is now a scarcer commodity than consumer’s money. This is a fact that we seem to agree on. Lower barrier to entry means more people make films for less money. Some of those are good; many are not. The trick is filtering through the bad to find the good; a job that is increasingly offloaded to the viewers.

However, where we differ in opinion is that I do not see this as an obstacle, but an opportunity. Mike talks about the rising cost of marketing, and how films must shout loud enough to be heard over the noise (I paraphrase). I think this is the wrong approach. Success for a small, low-budget film is more easily found by connecting that film with its niche audience, a goal that is aided, not hindered by technology.

Digital distribution lowers marginal costs to asymptotically approach zero. Crowdsourcing of the filtering process negates the need for taste makers and executives to tell people what they want. The declining need for those jobs means the people currently holding them have to adapt to the changing landscape. Some try to hold onto the status quo long enough to reach retirement. The real winners will be the ones who take a risk and leave the comfortable status quo to be at the forefront of the wave of change.

The final point in Mike’s article is about the major challenge for content producers of creating content and selling it at a profit. As the technology is democratized, more people can create content, and with the same amount (or decreasing) consumption, it’s true that maintaining a health profit margin is difficult. But if the only barrier keeping a novice from creating content that is more relevant or enjoyable to the viewer was technology, then the old guard of content creators hasn’t been doing a very good job.

The technological playing field is being evened, the challenge is to produce content that people connect with and want, not just content that looks good. There are 4 quadrants in the production quality/story quality grid. The result of democratization of technology is that the production quality gradient gets flattened and it is no longer the determining factor in success. Story quality (however you define it), becomes a larger differentiator and, as such, will be the main measure of quality to people deciding ‘what to watch’ (or ‘where do I spend my attention?’).

We’re seeing the effects of this already (Mike points to Speed Racer’s absence of plot and resulting box office figures), but it will only become more pronounced as the difference in production quality from a studio-backed blockbuster and a low-budget indie gets smaller. Personally, I don’t see this as a problem so much as an opportunity. It’s an exciting time to be creating independent media of any kind and consumers have more choices than ever before. The future entertainment economy may not support large studios and monolithic entertainment empires, but there will continue to be a place for content creators and artists.