If you look at film, distribution is pre-bought. If you’ve paid for the distribution, you say, “I have to make sure it’s a film that gets enough butts in the seats.” I think that’s the problem: It becomes prohibitively expensive, and you can’t develop films for a smaller amount of money.
8 comments:
I agree with the author of this article. Film and TV are just too time consuming and things are beginning to overlap and repeat themselves. I have worked on a few commercials and in doing so I have realized a lot, including the huge difference between high budget and low budget entertainment. If I took one thing out of Basic PTM and applied it to the real world, it is that time is money and people and resources are money. When you break things down it is far to expensive in the real world to do anything and –like the article mentioned- once you do get a successful hit television show or movie it will be copied and given new twists because that is what’s working so every network wants what is working. The new change in mainstream media also has an effect on the way we view television and film because we are always on the go and never have enough time to sit and watch something for an extended period of time.
While the article raises many valid points, the article itself seems insubstantial. I think this article could be incredibly valuable if it were backed up by more statistics, if it were longer and/or more focused. Trying to adequately explain what is wrong with current distribution expenses, while also addressing the need to adapt and format into new mediums and the copy-cat style of program development is a bit ambitious for so few words.
That said, Smith's first paragraph about one successful show paying for all the ones that were not is interesting to think about. I rather doubt we will ever be able to shake that system, even though the industry as a whole is aware (and increasing that awareness every day). The difference between theory and actuality in film and TV is too great that we are unable to assess the risk of producing a show using methods other industries can rely on. A show's reception is governed largely (if not purely) by the subjective responses of the viewers. Technology at least has the ability to absolutely know if something "works". Companies can put out products that function. Film and TV will simply never have the ability to know if their product functions until it is already on the market. And this is why I believe this hopelessly inefficient system will remain.
Reading this, I sort of expected some more substantial evidence to back up his opinion. However, his opinion is still an interesting one. Take for example the online sitcom Submissions Only. It began as a low budget project that was distributed online on the producers own site. It was so popular and successful that it was picked up by Broadway World, and now can be streamed from their website. This is a prime example of the way television needs to and is beginning to grow. People like easy access, free streaming, and original stories. Cutting out the need for a station to pick up a show, or a theatre to show a film eliminates the part of the industry that costs the most money, both for the producers of the media and those who consume it. Media is allowed to be more original because it has lower costs, and no one is enslaved to finding mass appeal. It is far easier for artists to create and release, and for the audience to consume. This is the new nature of the media, and those who resist the new model are only really hurting themselves
In my opinion, Shane's words hold a lot of truth in regards to the TV and movie situation happening now. We all know for a fact that an overwhelming majority of entertainment business surrounding Hollywood operate on one coda: make money. It's no surprise that these companies want to think about distributing ideas that aren't exactly original, but will, as Shane says, "put butts in the seats". It's disheartening for writers, actors, and designers who want to exercise their craft with interesting films that reach major audiences, but it's a fact of the contemporary life we live in. What is heartening, though, is the fact that online television and film is a medium where creativity and 'mistakes' can be embraced -- because they apparently cost less money to be produced. I know myself that I've found some very interesting, very entertaining YouTube 'mini-series' shows produced by actors and groups of their friends that are as interesting and cool as the next HBO pilot. That said, even though I watch most of my television online, I'm also partial to the thrill of watching my favorite shows live and with my friends. I like the choice, and I hope I won't have to give that up in the coming decades.
I think it makes sense for film and television to shift over to more of an online venue, especially in our digital age. I think Netflix currently has a great business model of this, producing exclusive series like House of Cards and giving access directly to the viewers without having to pay extra for airtime. I think movies would work well in a similar way, the option to stream a film instantly would allow filmmakers to get their work out there and get it noticed without having to worry about box office sales making or breaking their investment. With movies it’s a little trickier though, there is something about going to a theater and watching a film on a giant screen that is more magical than on your laptop at home. There’s a certain sentimental feeling about going to the cinema, so perhaps we’re not quite ready to stream everything just yet, but I think utilizing digital media streaming sources like Netflix and HBO Go might hold the future for visual entertainment because production companies can minimize costs of air time and screenings, and maximize accessibility to larger audiences.
I agree that there is an issue with the way television shows and feature films are paid for and with the inherent fiscal risk that every project represents for a company. However, I don’t think that the Internet is anywhere near creating anything that could rival the production value of a television show or a feature film. Of course there are some stand out projects that have become popular despite Internet distribution and low production value, but I can’t say that I am seeing a greater shift away from the way things are being produced now. Obviously, Netflix has proven that a successful show can be released specifically for Internet consumers, but even their show have television quality production values.
This article stops short of proving its point; it doesn’t offer any concrete statics or point to any successful Internet projects. It doesn’t delve deep enough into the subject for me to say whether or not I strongly disagree or agree with his point, or vision of the future.
2. This is an interesting comparison that I would not have thought to make. The distinction between TV and film and online entertainment, in my mind, is not huge. When I watch something online, it is a movie or a TV show that has been on TV or in theatres already, so I’m not sure what he is talking about unless he means the Netflix original series, which there aren’t many of. It would have been nice if he included some actual research or data to support his argument. On the other hand, I think he has a point about moving into the digital/mobile age. People these days are all about getting things done fast and on the move; I haven’t sat down to watch a regularly scheduled television show in years. I stream my TV shows off the internet, going through the episodes at whatever pace I want. While these shows were not produced online, it is the watching style I enjoy the most. It will be interesting to see how the film industry adapts to these changes.
This is an interesting comparison that I would not have thought to make. The distinction between TV and film and online entertainment, in my mind, is not huge. When I watch something online, it is a movie or a TV show that has been on TV or in theatres already, so I’m not sure what he is talking about unless he means the Netflix original series, which there aren’t many of. It would have been nice if he included some actual research or data to support his argument. On the other hand, I think he has a point about moving into the digital/mobile age. People these days are all about getting things done fast and on the move; I haven’t sat down to watch a regularly scheduled television show in years. I stream my TV shows off the internet, going through the episodes at whatever pace I want. While these shows were not produced online, it is the watching style I enjoy the most. It will be interesting to see how the film industry adapts to these changes.
Post a Comment