Related posts:

1. I’m waiting for iPad 2.0
2. VID: Heritage Plantation
3. Layman Group Weekend

I can’t help but compare the iPad launch to that of the iPhone.  A similar anticipation, a similar hope for something revolutionary.

The difference is: there was already a need, and the iPhone delivered.

In 2007, smartphones really did suck, and the iPhone was the intuitive answer other companies had been fumbling around blindly for.  A simple device that made telephony easier.

• It managed contacts better.
• Ditto for voicemail.
• Even with the initial lack of MMS, text messaging was easier on the iPhone.

Not to mention it created a whole new economy of apps, and literally put the Internet in your pocket.  I could go on.

The iPad suffers from two problems: there is no direct need for it, nor does it adequately bridge anything.  What are its actual innovations?

• It’s a big iPhone.
• “We redid the Calendar app!”

Jobs claims the iPad offers the best Internet experience anywhere, but frankly, it was embarrassing to watch him attempt to scroll around the broken Flash sections of the New York Times.  (I believe the antiquated “netbook” can still watch YouTube without a specialized app).

There are some who argue this device is going to open the floodgates of a whole new way of computing.  I think it has the potential, but not until it offers something that can’t be substituted by existing technology.  ”Doing it cooler” isn’t enough.  It has to do it better.

I REMAIN PATIENT

However this might seem, I am still a believer in the Apple product line.  If there is enough support for the iPad, next year we’ll be seeing a much-improved model, with a front-facing camera for video chat, and perhaps a decent file structure system at last (Why can I not load PDFs onto my own device?  Until this is solved, the Kindle and the Nook still have a big chunk of the market).  When that happens, I’ll be dropping money down at my local Apple store.

Till then, I will stand by, let the early-adopters jump on the bandwagon, and pray this device doesn’t go the way of the AppleTV.

Related posts:

1. iPhone 3G S Will Make Moviemaking Easier
2. iPad Followup
3. Future of Entertainment

Catching up on some old news: Roman Polanski was recently moved from a Switzerland jail to an undisclosed location for security reasons.  Read the BBC News story here: Film Director Roman Polanski Moved from Swiss Jail

He’s still in custody, wherever he is, so extradition to the U.S. is still possible.  Opinions fly on both sides as to whether Polanski should still serve time for the crime he committed more than 30 years ago.  I think he should.

And it occurred to me that the arguments around Polanski’s freedom mirror the arguments I used to level against the Hollywood unions (SAG, WGA, DGA, etc) as an independent filmmaker.

As my company became a signatory to SAG’s New Media Agreement last year, I have clearly changed my opinion of unions.  And Polanski’s predicament is a perfect example of why unions are necessary, in today’s marketplace.

THE BACKGROUND STORY, IN 100 WORDS
1977: During a modeling shoot, Polanski gave alcohol and a sedative to a 13-year-old girl and then coerced her into having sex.  He was prosecuted, plead guilty, and before being sentenced, fled to his home in France, relying on their limited extradition treaty to keep him out of U.S. prison.  This year (2009) he won a lifetime achievement award, and when he went to Switzerland to pick it up, he was arrested.  Currently, there is a debate about whether he can/should be sent back to the U.S. to serve his sentence.

POLANSKI IS HIS OWN STUDIO
In this example, we have four parties.

• Roman Polanski (The Studio)
• The U.S. Gov’t (The Union)
• Polanski’s victim (The Artist)
• People calling for the case to be dropped (Anti-union low-budget filmmakers)

The argument for “dropping the case” can be compared to the argument to allow union workers to work outside the union, on low/no-budget projects, without losing their Guild status.

And before I proceed, let me clarify: I’m not saying unions can’t improve.  I’m saying: for the climate they in which they live, their behavior is actually very justified.

In this case, some 30 years ago, the Studio (Polanski) committed a major transgression against the Artist (Polanski’s victim), clearly against the rules of the Union (U.S. Gov’t).  And Indie Filmmakers (aka members of the public) have come up with several valid-sounding reasons for why the case should be dropped:

• This is a lot of fuss over nothing. The transgression is more than thirty years old.  (This same argument is applied when low-budget filmmakers complain about costly day-rates for SAG actors.  ”Nobody is making any money!   Why should the actors?”)
• It’s stupid and unfair. Polanski is over 70 years old!  What will prosecuting him really accomplish?   (Similarly, indie filmmakers complain that strict union requirements hamper them from getting projects off the ground or in the black)
• The Artist (Polanski’s victim) is okay with it. It’s true.  Polanski’s victim has come forward and asked that the case be dropped.  (Similarly, Guild members regularly want to work on non-union projects all the time)

So with all these arguments stacked up, why do I still believe Polanski should go to jail, and unions should be just as thorough and nitpicky about small projects as with large ones?

It’s all about setting precedent.

Unions work in an environment full of enormously powerful, enormously rich, enormously profit-minded corporations.  Year after year, they slowly hammer at a tenuous foothold of rules and requirements called the Minimum Basic Agreement.   Some years they lose ground.  Some years they gain ground.

But every time they make a concession to a small, artistically-oriented project, they risk eroding the foundation of that foothold, and opening loopholes for powerful companies to exploit.  Like so:

• This is a lot of fuss over nothing // “Nobody’s making any money!” It would be no hard accounting trick at all for a major studio to juggle their books in such a way that no one is being paid more than a tiny stipend.  Salaries for key figures could be made up in other ways: profit-sharing, amenities, unusually-high per diems/expense accounts.
• It’s stupid and unfair // “Your rules are hampering our low-budget production!” How difficult would it be for a studio to form a sub-company, assign it no money or assets, and label it a “low-budget production?”  They already use this trick to minimize risk in case of a lawsuit (companies are created for the sole purpose of holding ownership of a movie.  All these ownership companies are then owned by larger companies, or studios).
• The Artist is okay with it. Is the artist really all right, or are they being coerced into agreeing?  Common wisdom says this already happens with screenwriters: they are pressured into working for free, to stay in the good graces of the studio.  Complain to the union?  You don’t work again.

If the Union publicly relents on their rules, they are setting a precedent, and making themselves the targets of lawyers who will be paid enormous sums to find ways to exploit that precedent.  That means that every individual case needs to be weighed against the potential damage to the whole system.

The same is true for Polanski.  We can look at this one individual case and say, “Come on, he’s almost eighty.  What are we trying to prove?”

But if we let him walk, we are setting up a legal precedent.  We’re rewriting the statute of limitations on child molestation and literally institutionalizing the idea that if you have enough money, consequences need not apply.

Some people would say it already is that way.  And they are probably right, in some cases.  But do we really want to legitimize bad behavior?

I don’t.  And neither do the film unions.

Related posts:

1. NY Times: “Indies Going Solo”
2. I Predict the Oscars — BLIND!
3. Study Everything

Dear Earl,

I read your post about how screenwriters should become directors to protect their work.  Isn’t that a bit much to ask somebody?  It’s hard enough to learn one job.

In that specific case, I was referring to the screenwriter’s weakened position in the moviemaking system.

Directors have more power.  Ergo, if screenwriters want the power to protect their stories, they should seek a position of power.  I’m not saying every artist needs to study every field.

Oh, thank goodness.

But now that you mention it, it’s not a bad idea.

I never went to film school.  There’s a fun story behind that, which I’ll tell another time.

Without any formal guidance, I had to build my own curriculum.  So for awhile, I studied film books.  And in my studies, I came across a man named Sergei Eisenstein.

// STUDIES WITH SERGEI //
Eisenstein is the creator of, among other films, the Battleship Potemkin and its famous Odessa Step sequence.  He lived during film’s early innovation years, when the idea of cutting two shots together was a revolutionary idea.  Literally.

The idea of creating meaning by joining shots is almost second-nature to us now, but Eisenstein helped pioneer the practice.

So where did he get the idea?  Not from studying films (there were hardly any films to study).

By taking concepts from Japanese writing, and combining it with his own experiments in the Soviet cinema training program, he helped develop the idea of cutting film.

// CUT TO: EARL, CIRCA 2001 //

The story of Eisenstein’s discoveries changed the entire way I viewed my self-education, and in the process, changed the way I work, both creatively and otherwise.

From Eisenstein’s story, I learned:

• There are no irrelevant fields of study.
Everything relates, in some way, to everything else. Knowing how one system or discipline works can inform your knowledge of others.

Obvious example: I started life as a screenwriter. Becoming a director (and with that, an editor) taught me what worked on the screen, and what didn’t. It informed my imagination in a way that “more writing” couldn’t have.

Less obvious example: for a time, I worked as an American Sign Language interpreter. I didn’t know it then, but working in a completely visual language taught me the feel for the subtleties of nonverbal communication.  I learned how to tell stories better by applying the principles I learned in sign language.

• Good ideas come from anywhere.
You don’t know where the next great idea you have will come from. That makes everything interesting, on some level. And it also encourages collaboration and humility when you’re working with others. People want to work with me again because they feel like their creative ideas are respected. That’s because when they speak, I listen, whether I agree or not.

• Learning doesn’t stop.
If any discipline can influence any other, how do you know which ones to study, and when to stop? The answer to both is: “you don’t.” And that’s exactly where you want to be.

That passion for learning maintains with Funakoshi called “the beginner’s mind:” a mind open, unbiased, and excited to understand.  (A concept I wouldn’t know to apply, if I hadn’t studied Shotokan karate)

// STUDY EVERYTHING //
Study what you love. Study some things you hate. Above all, study the jobs that relate to your career.

Screenwriters should know how to direct; directors, how to act.  Novelists should know how to edit their manuscripts.

Everyone should know something about marketing.

You do not have to be an expert in any of these. But knowing enough — the lingo, the mindset, the necessities of the job — will inform your own work. You will know how to avoid the pitfalls that appear further down the line.

And if the field has nothing to do with your passion, tremendous.  You are more likely to discover an insight about your work that no one has ever thought of, because they never thought to look for answers in the study of architecture.  (Or robotics, or computer programming, or avid gaming)

If I were a screenwriter starting today, you know whose job I would study?

The unit production manager. AKA, Them What Puts the Budget Together.

Knowing how to keep things cheap is an excellent tool for a screenwriter to have.

Especially now.

Related posts:

1. The End of the Screenwriter
2. Pry Yourself from Preproduction
3. Test-Screening Your Screenplay

Author cried over film of Vintner’s Luck

I don’t want to address the merits of Ms. Knox’s story as I think it’s irrelevant to my point here.  My point is: it’s time for the role of a screenwriter to come to an end.

I’m not sure if I have a resounding thesis statement to make, as much as an expression of anger.  I’m very tired of the idea that the director’s vision trumps the screenplay.  I’m saying this as a director myself.  Having a great visual imagination doesn’t qualify you to weigh in on story.  Yet it’s not uncommon for a script to be tossed out and completely reworked by a director, sometimes at the last minute, to support their “vision.”  Is there any other industry where a leader can come in, completely shred years of work and research, and “follow his vision?”

Something has to change. We already know screenwriters have no power in the industry.  It’s gone from a joke to a cliché to a fact of life.  Leading with, “I’m a screenwriter” is like saying, “I’m not in charge.  I just do the words.”

Screenwriters are so focused on “breaking in” to screenwriting.  Dozens of questions about the right formatting, the best techniques, the right way to get an agent.  Nobody is asking how to find a decent director for their work, and their career could hinge on that more than anything.

Unless they take responsibility for themselves, learn to direct, and actually create something consumable.

I think screenwriters have to stop being screenwriters.  We have to become “people who also write.”  We have to stop fighting battles from positions of weakness, and establish ourselves in territory where we have a greater advantage.  If that means becoming writer/directors and writer/producers, then so be it.

Do what it takes.  Learn the skills you need.  Find people to help you.  But don’t resign behind the laptop with a cappuccino while a questionably-competent interpreter “finds his vision” amidst the ruins of your life’s work.

Related posts:

1. Study Everything
2. Pry Yourself from Preproduction
3. Read More Screenplays (And How)

Dear Earl,

We just received an email announcing the open entry period for a big media award/film festival, and we’re going to enter!

Awesome, congrats.  Why are you entering?

When you win, the trophy is amazing, it’s made of crystal and golden butterflies — wait, what?  What do you mean, ‘why?’  It’s a big award/film festival!

How much is the entry fee?

Huh?  I don’t know.  It’s somewhere around ($50/$100/$200).

Maybe it’s just me, but if someone is asking for more than lunch money, I like to know why I’m doing it.

Everyone born after 1953 has imagined this for themselves at some point.  And when you finally commit to being a professional creative, you’re hit with so much hard reality (disappointment, compromise, and poverty) it can seem like the last bit of magic left.

And it is.  For one night.

But after the champagne is all gone and the press has gone home, a new day dawns and you’re left with a clunky conversation piece.  And not much more.  There is no honor in winning awards.

You’re depressing me.

That’s because, as an audience member, you have always admired awards.  That admiration is what you’re going to count on now, as a creative professional, when you realize that awards are really only good for marketing purposes.

Awards are something you wow the audience with.  Awards get you jobs, get you access to higher-caliber collaborators.  In a marketplace glutted with competing talent, awards give you the benefit of the doubt.

Isn’t that the same thing as honor?

It is and it isn’t.  Honor is an ambiguous idea that floats wherever we place it.  What I’m talking about is credibility, and that has a very concrete value.

So I shouldn’t try to win awards?

You should absolutely consider it.  But be discerning.  Like anything creative, you should take into account your audience first.

And before you offer yourself up to be judged, be a judge yourself.  This award/film festival claims to be prestigious and noteworthy: have you ever heard of it?  Is it something recognized by your industry, your clients, your audience?  If not, you may get better results spending your marketing budget elsewhere.

Because that’s what you’re doing, when you submit to win an award.  As much as you’re putting yourself up against your peers, you’re also entering a blind bid for something to add to your press kit.

Set aside the validation of winning.  If someone offered you the chance to buy this award, for the same price as the entry fee, would you do it?

That’s how you know if an award is worth it.  It cannot be about validation.  If you don’t already know you’re good enough to win, you probably aren’t ready to enter.

Related posts:

1. A Question about Stranger Things DVD
2. Dealing with Silence and Rejection
3. Pry Yourself from Preproduction

What Really Happened To (Spoiler Deleted)

Here’s the excerpt I want to focus on (emphasis mine):

Creator Damian Kindler: “Once we know for sure about a third season, there is definitely an Ashley story in there that we’re developing…(snip) The intention was to never kill her off with any finality. It was always to kill her off in a way that was dubious at best and fraught with inconsistencies and fraught with mystery and isn’t completely solved even when they have to put her to rest and move on.”

Let’s start with some disclaimers.

• I haven’t watched the show beyond a few clips.
• Because of that, I may have missed some essential piece that would change my forthcoming opinion.
• Mr. Kindler may have come up with an innovative way to break the rules.
• I really, really doubt that 2 or 3 is the case.  Therefore…

I would pose that Mr. Kindler’s statements are incredibly destructive, and harmful to his own show.

WHAT WE KNOW…

There’re no Hollywood secrets anymore.  As an audience, we all know storytellers will lend our favorite characters a bit of immortality, for the sake of our love and their ratings.

IS NOT WHAT WE NEED TO BELIEVE…

We need to believe this storybook world is real, with real consequences. We need to believe terrible things could happen to our protagonists.  It makes their triumph over adversity that much more exciting.  That’s what makes them so memorable, and our time with them so special.

The threat of loss is an essential part of storytelling, simply because safe people are not interesting to watch.

What Mr. Kindler has made clear, in his innocent wink to the sci-fi audience, is death is only as permanent as his whim: any hurt undone, any tragedy repealed. Not interesting.

WE WANT THE MAGIC

Storytelling is a kind of magic act.  It’s about misdirection and suspension of disbelief.  You see something amazing and you want to believe in it.  Stories give us that permission.

We know it’s all a trick, from the first moment.  But the best magicians convince us the illusion is truth and the danger is real.

How magical would it seem, if the magician began with, “Now, if you’ll look carefully, I have a spring-loaded sleeve with a rabbit in it…”

Related posts:

1. Pry Yourself from Preproduction
2. Are Awards Worth It?
3. Study Everything

Earl Newton on Art

Related posts:

1. Layman Group Weekend
2. True Stories: Rachel White
3. October Update

Check below the jump for the Google Map.

I had to break the map into two pieces to fully show the entire trip.  It also doesn’t show that I started in Pennsylvania, but I did.  The map is divided at Charleston, WV, and picks up there for the rest of the trip.

I took photos in several states, got souvenirs from just a few, but there are definitely some towns/days I have lost completely. Most of Kentucky and Missouri is just one big swath of my life that I am never getting back.

But, it was all worth it, to be able to afford to take @gozombiego and the Zombielets somewhere nice for Christmas.


View Larger Map

A through E: Cincinatti, OH; Dayton, OH; Cleveland, OH; Detroit, MI; Flint, MI
F through J: Grand Rapids, MI; Chicago, IL; Joliet, IL; Laona, WI; Excelsior Springs, MO
K through O: St Louis, MO; Puxico, MO; Golcanda, IL; Morganfield, KY; Greenfield, KY
P through T: Mammoth Cave, KY; Simsponville, KY; Frenchburg, KY; Pine Knot, KY; Franklin, NC
U through Y: Bristol, TN; Coeburn, VA; Marion, VA; Prestonsburg, KY; Charleston, WV


View Larger Map

A through E: Charleston, WV; Monroe, VA; Harpers Ferry, WV; Woodstock, MD; Laurel, MD
F through I: Washington DC; Kittrell, NC; Bamberg, SC; Atlanta, GA

Related posts:

1. A Question about Stranger Things DVD
2. No, Netflix, I DON’T think I’ll enjoy that.
3. Future of Entertainment

This is where I’ll be and what I’m doing for the next four weeks.

These dates are estimates, and may be subject to change.

Oct 5-8: On the road for my DayJobVu. Also putting final touches on Undisclosed Seafaring Project.

Oct 9-13: Atlanta: pitching a project and shooting pieces for the Stranger Things DVD.

Oct 14: Auburn, Al: Shooting pieces for Stranger Things DVD.

Oct 15: Birmingham, Al: Shooting pieces for the Stranger Things DVD.

Oct 20-22: Wilmington, NC: Shooting pieces for ST DVD and pitching Undisclosed Stranger Things project.

Oct 26-27: More DayJobVu.

Oct 28: Nashville, TN: More ST DVD bits.

Oct 29: Back with Annie and the zombielets for Halloween.

Dates may shift, depending on how tough the travel is. But that’s a good picture of my October. How about yours?

Related posts:

1. Site Update
2. Chalk It Up to 2008
3. Touchdown: Los Angeles

I highly recommend you read the entire post. Gabrielle is an editor for Dragon Moon Press, and really offers the much-needed insider view on this issue.

My thoughts on her post after the jump.

Look especially at #2: “It’s a one-shot business transaction.” That is my entire thought in a nutshell: it’s business.

It seems to me a lot of submissions are sent, not as a business proposal, but as validation-seeking: “if they accept me, it means I’m good!”

Editors (producers/directors/publishers) are business people. You shouldn’t seek validation from business people. They aren’t in the validation business.

So if you still feel concerned that your work isn’t up to snuff, relax; it probably isn’t. Take your time, develop your craft, and step up to the plate when you’ve got something you know you can sell. Anything before that, and you’re cracking the egg before it’s time to hatch.

You’ll appreciate the gestation period later, I promise.

(insert “avoiding ‘egg on your face’ joke”)

Related posts:

1. Dealing with Silence and Rejection
2. Are Awards Worth It?
3. Study Everything

The Fight Over the Google of All Libraries

It’s worth reading for yourself, as well as following the most recent update here (as of Sept 25).

Key points to consider:

• “Google’s mission is to ‘organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.’”  It doesn’t say what that will cost, and it begs the question: if one has a monopoly on all the world’s knowledge, do they have a right to charge for it, especially when it can be transferred to anyone else at zero cost?
• Google isn’t known for charging for its services…up to this point.  Right now, thanks to “free,” Google has been able to stake claims in the markets for email software, office document processing, telephony, and a lot more.

Whenever I hear about something Google is doing, I think back to an old Star Trek episode my father used to tell me about (Ep 41: I, Mudd).  A group decides the human race is too dangerous to be free, so they decide to take control of us. When asked how they will do it, they respond thusly:

Makes you realize how open to interpretation a phrase like “Don’t be Evil” can be.

Related posts:

1. Future of Entertainment
2. iPhone 3G S Will Make Moviemaking Easier
3. Updates coming

How many of you would be interested in a numbered, limited-edition Stranger Things package that would include:

• A Stranger Things DVD with Episodes 1-4, and bonus content galore
  
• A documentary about Stranger Things, especially the move from low-budget show to TV in 14 months
• An e-book containing extensive notes regarding the show and the people, along with script excerpts and other materials
• A graphic novel version of an unproduced episode
• A gorgeous 11×17 print of a painting inspired by the series
• Also, branded swag like jump drives and more
• All of this, of course, will be signed.
  

Would you be interested in that?

The time has come to make this happen.  But it’s not going to be easy, and I’m going to need your help.  Here’s the Plan:

1) A Stranger Things DVD release will take time. I want to do some things that have never been done with DVD. This Christmas may be too close to have it ready, but we are going to do our damnedest to do it.

2) I will need everyone’s help. To make a DVD release happen, I need at least 500 pre-orders. That means: when the time comes, spread the word!

3) We’re not ready to take preorders yet, but I will let you know as soon as we are.

4) Until then, this is your chance to put in your ideas for the DVD: earl@strangerthings.tv. Or, just sit back and prepare to be wowed.

Related posts:

1. Stranger Things wins 2008 Parsec Award
2. JC Hutchins and Geek Cred talk Stranger Things
3. Stranger Things: Ep05

The most interesting aspect of this discussion, to me, is the lack of discussion about the role of video games in eroding the film market.

By and large, the movies that sell the most are escapist entertainment. The problem is: movies don’t have the corner on escapism any more.

I can pay

(for a movie, avg. 2 hrs)

• $10 for two hours of watching a protagonist leap from one near-death to another ($5/hour)
• $25 to buy the Collector’s Edition DVD at BestBuy (after waiting four months for it to release; $12.50/hr, slightly less if you include “behind the scenes,” and I don’t)
• $10 to buy the Cheapie On-Sale Walmart edition ($5/hr, but I have to wait a year)

(for a video game, avg 12 hrs gameplay)

• $60 to buy the game the day it comes out ($5/hr)
• $30 to buy it at cheapie Wal-Mart discount prices (waiting eight months for prices to drop, $2.50/hr)

So I can buy either medium, on the first day of availability, for $5/hr. The difference with video games is: I get 6 times the entertainment at the same rate, and the longer I wait, the cheaper it becomes.

And don’t forget replay value: any game with decent replay value (anything in the Mario franchise, open sandbox games) will last you at least fifty hours. Games with multiplayer capability or ongoing storylines (Halo, the Sims) will go two hundred or beyond. (Do I have to bring up World of Warcraft?) That’s two hundred distinct, original hours of entertainment. How many times will you rewatch a movie?

Most importantly, whatever entertainment I derive from the experience is completely mine. I leap across dangerous chasms at the last minute, not Nick Cage. Any experience, large or small, takes on a larger import, because I am the protagonist.

Escapist movies are, “Hey, audience, watch me do this cool thing!”

Escapist video games are, “Here’s a gun and a map. Get out alive.”

Which sounds more dramatic to you?

Related posts:

1. One Step Closer to an Interactive Future
2. NY Times: “Indies Going Solo”
3. Less Talk, More Rock (Video Game Narrative)

Welcome to Real Life

* replace writing with drawing, composing, editing, dancing; whatever your particular passion is.

Related posts:

1. Destin Log article
2. Hard Drives Aren’t Forever
3. Study Everything

More than ever, it’s the wild west out there now.  Right now, studios are less and less interested in developing new material, turning back again and again to remakes and derivatives of pre-existing properties.

As a storyteller, that scares me, not because of any artistic choice, but because once any industry stops investing in the future, they start digging their own grave.

IMAGINE THIS

Right now, fewer and fewer productions are being developed in-house.  Studios have decided to sit back and purchase more films after they’ve been completed, offering low purchase deals with non-existent profit-sharing, and promising to shoulder the seemingly-daunting task of advertising and promotion.

Well, somebody drew back the curtain at the turn of the century, and independent creators are starting to realize that

• Marketing isn’t magic
• It isn’t nearly as expensive anymore (thanks, Internet)
• mainstream media was never really especially good at it; they were just louder
  
• as an independent, it’s becoming less financially-viable to court mainstream distribution companies anymore

I’m not predicting the end of the studio system, they are too large to disappear entirely (we still have major radio broadcasters today – how much of them are doing original narrative work any more?).  But unless there is a major change in policy, I think studios in future are going to find themselves falling out of the conversation.

To put it another way: right now filmmakers are seeking the independent route because they have to; what is going to happen when that becomes precedent?  “Anvil! The Story of Anvil” has already made roughly a million dollars at the box office; others can do that, too.

Filmmakers don’t choose storytelling because it’s a sound financial investment.  They do it to tell their stories and keep the power bill paid.  When it becomes easier to cut a new path through the marketplace instead of fording through the studio system, they will do that.

Related posts:

1. Indies Go Solo Part 2 (Video Games)
2. Polanski’s Punishment and Union Dues
3. About beauty stereotypes…

When Earl Newton was 10, he convinced his friends he was born on another planet.

The article hasn’t been posted on the Destin Log’s website, so I’m linking to a repost of it on TMCnet.com.

Read the full article here.

Related posts:

1. Unquiet Desperation: The Creative Process (interview)
2. Juggling Real Life and Writing
3. Hard Drives Aren’t Forever

This time we featured Messengers II: The Scarecrow, a new movie from Ghost House Pictures, available in stores and on Amazon.com. (I get no kickbacks for the link, I’m just helpful like that)

New upgrades to look for:

• We added some fun “interview cutaways” for fresh takes on Ghost House and their new flick (featuring novelist J.C. Hutchins in Episode One, Messengers screenwriter Todd Farmer in Episode Two, and me)
• Moving cameras!  I wanted this in the first series, and there just wasn’t time to develop it.  Now the camera cruises constantly as Scott lays out the dirt on Messengers II.  Groovy.

Post some comments, thoughts are welcome.  I want to smooth out the cameras in the next version, and I’m looking to revamp a few other things too.

Related posts:

1. Another Sigler/Newton Grungefest
2. Chalk It Up to 2008
3. New Sci-fi Horror Script complete

I found a link to Barrett Garese’s article “Scarcity, Experience, and an Old Seat at a New Table“, via ArtfulWriter.com.  A lot of what he talks about are ideas I’ve been working on since I started Stranger Things, but like any good writer, Garese really clarifies the problems and challenges we face in the new media landscape.

The entire article is worth a read, but there are several passages worth more careful attention…

• “Piracy is a distribution model”

Garese doesn’t say this outright, but he acknowledges (as should we) that piracy IS a common method of distrubtion today: legal or otherwise, it’s happening.  The wise distributor will find ways to work this to his advantage.

• “What will become the uniquely ‘online’ media experience?”

As Garese points, out, most online entertainment is really smaller-budgeted film or TV experiences, loaded on the Internet.  This is no more appropriate than the filmed stage plays of the 1930s/1940s.  For online content to thrive, creators have to lock in on what makes the online experience unique.  If I had to put it in a word, I would say interactivity.

• Content creators stand to lose less than distributors.

While I would argue some of the finer points of this idea, it has a ring of truth.  As long as you can create content people want, there will be room for you in the marketplace somewhere.  It’s a matter of finding out how to adapt your voice to the megaphones available.  Distributors, especially of hard product like DVD, may find themselves in the cold in ten years.

• “Free Google Internet????”

Check out conclusion #6 near the bottom of the post.  This caught me completely by surprise.  But some research turned up a few older stories (Google offers free Wi-Fi in Mountain View, CA / What’s Google doing with all that Dark Fiber?) so I’m more inclined to believe it.

• • •

Above all, remember that this changing landscape should only worry you if you’re already invested in it: i.e., if you have a show on television, or have a DVD distribution deal, or a three-picture deal with Paramount.  If you are still at the bottom, working the angles to find a way in, you couldn’t be in a better position.  This changing landscape will favor the fast-moving, industrious creative-types.  It will mean hard work, but that’s a small price to pay to see the dawn of a new age.

As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.

– Bob Dylan

Related posts:

1. Google’s Coming Monopoly on Knowledge
2. One Step Closer to an Interactive Future
3. NY Times: “Indies Going Solo”

This photo has been uploaded over at FailBlog.org.  If you like it, go vote on it.

Related posts:

1. Me, on a Tweet-Shirt?
2. SFWA Members: I Need Your Help to win a Bradbury