Category: Film

Innovate Faster?

Since the days of Napster, the technosenti have been insisting that the entertainment industry simply needs to stop complaining about copyright theft and innovate.  Setting aside the fact that exploitation is not a form of innovation, I like to remind people that with regard to filmed entertainment, the technology for reliable, high-quality streaming is about five years old, which may seem like decades to a Silcon Valley millionaire or an impatient 15 year-old, but is in reality not a very long time for any industry to transform itself. Nevertheless, this infographic released by the MPAA shows over 400 perfectly legal, high-quality streaming services now available worldwide.  Netflix went from beating Blockbuster at the video rental game to investing in original TV production in the span of about five years.  And it’s worth noting that unlike most web businesses, which are built on monetizing activity and content that already exists, film and television producers’ core business is still actually producing work that is labor-intensive in the first place. Does this mean that in order to have a rational discussion about piracy, the industry has to innovate faster?

infographic_mpaa

GOOGLE-WOOD-LAND? Maybe not.

Okay, I haven’t seen The Internship yet, and it’ll be a small miracle if I find the time.  Certainly if it were not for this blog, I wouldn’t have any interest. But if the sampling of viewer responses on Rotten Tomatoes is any indication, it’s a safe bet that this particular Vaughn/Wilson vehicle has all the appeal of a driverless Porsche.  Consensus seems to be that the hand of Google’s PR machine is more than a little too heavy. This quote is not only exemplary, but is rich with irony, if you know Google’s position on making free the new price for entertainment:

“The Google logo appears so often you shouldn’t have to pay to see this movie. Google should pay you.”

Considering the amount of Google money that is spent in an effort to vilify Hollywood as the command HQ of all that would destroy the internet, it is funny to watch the web behemoth attempt to use motion pictures in this way and to see it backfire, particularly in the same month when CEO Larry Page has been “invited” to discuss new allegations of illegal activity by his company.  The thing is that even with a talented comic duo like Vaughn and Wilson, the audience can recognize when a motion picture is basically just a two-hour commercial.  Even though it isn’t Google’s picture, the PR department still had a level of approval and believed the film would be good for the company. It’s almost as though we could say these technologists just don’t get moviemaking.

New models, huh?

In contemplating two of the film projects I’m currently writing, I told my wife that I’ve been thinking about embracing new models.  With raised eyebrows, she demanded an explanation, and the more I tried to explain “new models” in the sense the internet industry has used the expression since the days of Napster, the more I believe she wished I’d meant hugging attractive, young women.

“Embracing new models” is generalized malarky that’s hard to condense because it refers to an argument constructed as an elaborate house of cards.  Suffice to say it begins with justifying mass online theft of creative works and circles around the the opportunity creative professionals have to bypass the evil “gatkeepers” and sell work directly to consumers.  But two pieces in today’s news caught my attention.   Both from The Wrap, the first and most important story is this one about YouTube’s biggest producing partners coming to realize that their revenue doesn’t exactly coincide with increases in viewership.  I can’t say I was surprised to read, “These partners feel that YouTube’s business approach enriches YouTube without making them nearly as wealthy.”  Presumably, this is simply a failure of the partners to embrace the new model of “you make product, we make money.”

On a somewhat related note, filmmaker Kevin Smith affirms something I have tried to explain to many a deaf ear — that crowd-funding is not a tool for every filmmaker working on any project.  Smith seems to agree that Kickstarter is a great way for a relative unknown to get something started, kinda like the name implies, but it is not the new way to finance motion pictures across the board.  For what it’s worth crowd-funding is often a constituent of the “new model” prophecy, and Kevin Smith is a favorite example of the hucksters who pitch it.