"Chris/tina": Support new series!

New media is fast approaching a golden age. Most of us now know that steady studio jobs have disappeared and the abundant funding for more traditional projects have dried up. More filmmakers see the internet as an unlimited canvas, where real careers are forged.

Jorge Ortiz is taking LGBT filmmaking to new heights with his new web series, Chris/tina. Chris/tina involves a young, transexual Los Angeles-based Latino living in a middle-class, socially conservative world. Jorge has been working on his series tirelessly for the past 2 years, developing and gathering the interest needed to produce and fund his project. I would say his hard work has paid off.



Please help Jorge out by supporting this revolutionary new series! It already made 2010 semi-finalist in the NexTV Writing and Pitch competition. The series will be produced by Anchorbolt Studios.



Happy Filmmaking!


UPDATE: I wanted to make a correction. Chris/tina is not a web series per se, but rather a television series using the means of internet. Also, the main character discovers his sexual identity as the show progresses. He does not identity as transsexual at the start of the series. Jorge has a new fundraising campaign here:

http://www.indiegogo.com/christinaseries

Amazon Studios: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Amazon Studios has been making a lot of noise around the blogosphere. Because there is so much information out there about it, I originally was not going to comment about it. But given that this is an indie film blog, I now feel I have to give my two cents.

If you haven't heard already, Amazon decided to launch an indie crowdsourcing venture called Amazon Studios. Writers can upload scripts in order to win cash prizes and possibly receive a deal through Amazon and Warner Bros. I'll just touch on the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good: Uploading to Amazon Studios is free. Contests usually cost an entry fee. This option might be attractive to a struggling filmmaker or writer. Also, the contest is a monthly one, with cash as a prize. Who doesn't love that? Also, Amazon Studios seems serious about democratizing the filmmaking process. Amazon Studios forms a community and encourages collaboration. Also, scripts do not have to be in English, which is usually a requirement for many other screenwriting contests. Now for the caveat.

The Bad: I think this speaks for itself:

You grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, non-terminable, sub-licensable, transferable right, during the License Period, as defined below, to copy, use, edit, add to, modify and otherwise alter any Original Property you contribute to Amazon Studios and to create, develop and produce derivative works based on the Original Property on and off of Amazon Studios in the form of treatments, screenplays, writer 's pitches, trailers, videos and other written, audio or audiovisual works (each a "DerivativeWork" and these rights, our "New Content Creation Rights"). Our New Content Creation Rights are exclusive during the License Period and you will not grant similar rights in your Original Property to anyone else during the License Period. After the License Period, if we don' t exercise the Option, our New Content Creation Rights will expire and you may grant similar rights to others. --Amazon Studios Development Agreement

In order words: a free option. For 18 months, you cannot shop around the same script to others for a better deal. For free. Usually, when given an option, you would receive some cash incentive not to shop around the script, per WGA rules. I do not know about you, but to me this is a major deal-breaker. Working as a writer, unless you have an exclusive personal relationship with a producer AND you are receiving a co-producer credit, I would avoid the so-called "free option." Even if you do not have a free option, you would at least want a negotiable term option. At Amazon Studios, you would receive neither. In addition, when your screenplay is optioned, you will be eligible for the WGA. Submitting your script to Amazon Studios will not qualify.

If you are a filmmaker, you have to create a "test movie" in order to test the script's validity. The test movie does not need to be a full scale production. However, Amazon expects you to test the entire script. Here, Amazon should have just asked for a trailer or a scene from the movie instead. It seems pointless to make a "test movie" for a potential production. You would be making the movie twice. If I were to create a feature-length test movie, I might as well produce the film myself and call it a day. Plus, Amazon seems to forget that the internet crowd has a short attention span. Who is gonna sit at their computer and watch a semi-produced movie?

The Ugly: John August already pointed this out, but I would make another point. We writers are a paranoid bunch. Many of us are too paranoid. I'm not as worried about others "stealing" my ideas, because if a writer was truly afraid of that, he or she would be afraid to pitch ideas to others. You have to let that go in order to market your work. You must learn to protect your work in a legal way. That being said, losing your rights to your work by uploading to Amazon Studios is not the worst part of Amazon's terms. Amazon is very vague about its procedure facing copyright and attribution issues. Further murking that up, other users can add revisions to your original work, without your permission. And if Amazon agrees to the changes, you have to recognize Goompykid94 as a co-writer.

Whenever I send a script to someone, I send it as a .pdf. Amazon Studios likes the obsolete file format .rtf instead. Not .doc or .docx. Not any Movie Magic or Final Draft format. Not even Celtix. But the same file format used in Wordpad. If you are like me, you predict major formatting issues. Last time I used this file format for a major project, I was wearing butterfly clips and waiting for my dial-up internet to connect via CompuServe. It was also the same time I was allowed to turn in a paper written in Comic Sans.

Last ugly point: Amazon expects the winning script to make $60 million in the box office before they pay you any more money. You might as well bend over. I'm assuming that's Domestic Box Office. This is assuming your script is any good and the resulting film is worthy of a theatrical distribution and release. Also, what about ancillary markets? Foreign release? Digital distribution. Not only does this deal overpromises, the deal is bad for you regardless of how well the film does. Amazon comes out on top. Either way, you will be underpaid and screwed out of your true compensation.

I expected more from the company that owns IMDb. Maybe I expected too much. But I guess it'll be useful for some script you care less about. I would not recommend Amazon Studios for your really good stuff, regardless of the promise of a first look from Warner Bros. Just use Vimeo or YouTube instead.

Happy Filmmaking.

Why 98.9% of all YouTube videos are garbage!

What's the fastest way to make your YouTube upload suck? Well, if I could only limit the list to five:

5. Gimmicky transitions.

4. Unreadable or cheesy fonts.

3. Complete disregard for copyright.

2. Crappy Tribute/Slash videos.

1. Using the prepackaged title cards from Windows Movie Maker as is.

Let's take a short, but detailed look at all of them.

5. Gimmicky transitions:

The Simpsons said it best. NO MORE STAR WIPES! For that matter, let's get rid of page wipes, pixelated wipes, sliding wipes, block wipes, any type of wipe. Unless you are Star Wars or some 1980s sitcom, only two transitions really matter: the clean cut and the dissolve. That's it. Anything else and you risk looking like a 12-year-old with too much time on your hands (please see #2).

4. Unreadable or cheesy fonts:

Titles or captions should not be in Curlz, Tempus Sans, or Comic Sans. They should be in a readable text, like Arial or Verdana. That also means your dark-colored title or text should not have a dark-colored background. And I have no idea why the YouTube developers decided annotations were a good idea.

Comic Sans strikes again.

3. Complete disregard for copyrighted music:

Hey, I'm all for public domain or fair use. But at least cite from where you got the copyrighted material. Biggest offenders: home videos that must have Ying Yang Twins accompanying your dog chasing his tail. They both have nothing to do with each other; which brings me to...

2. Crappy Tribute/Slash videos:

If it's been on television, odds are a tribute video exists, regardless of how obscure. Growing Pains? Yep. Family Matters? Covered. Dawson's Creek? Duh. Wuzzles?(Off topic: every person born after 1988 is scratching his or her head right now.) You bet your sweet tail!

Even worse are those videos that hint at some type of sexual relationship, usually between two characters of the same gender. I'm not a homophobe, but yeah, some of these videos exist because homophobes exist. Well, some--like Spock and Kirk--are quite good. Others, not so much. But come on, you know Olivia Benson and Alex Cabot were meant for each other! Elliot who?

You know you want it, Benson.

1. Using the prepackaged title cards from Windows Movie Maker as is:

Oh. My. God. I really don't have any words for this. Wait. Yes, I do. Stop it. At least change the background color from that VHS blue to black or something. And no more double-superimposed titles or spinning newspapers. But seriously, Windows Movie Maker can only take you so far. Buy Final Cut Pro or Avid. If you want to go all out, create your titles with AfterEffects. Or if you are broke, download one of these Ubuntu Linux editors.

Gotta love clichés that are dated even for Windows.

Bonus: Booty clapping videos.

I'm pretty sure this one borders on child pornography. All 14-year-old girls everywhere: this is not cute!

See you in Trig, Becky.

Happy Filmmaking.

Dumb and Dumber, blame the internet?

Is the internet really making us dumber? Of course there is some argument there: I'm one of the faceless millions who uses Google to spell-check. But is it really making us dumber? Or worse, is it killing professional film criticism?

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune seems to think so. With the democratic approach that is the internet, Page concludes that time-honored critics like Roger Ebert, Elvis Mitchell, or Leonard Maltin are losing their shirts to the "amateur" critics of imdb.com or Netflix.

He has a point. There seems to be a lot of people out there that would give Soul Plane a 10 on imdb.com because it was "hella-crazy, fo' sho!". You also have the trolls who believe every popular movie despite its critical and/or commercial successes is "the worst movie, ever." But, I think Mr. Page gives too much credit to these folks, and not enough to the folks between Ebert and norbitlover_92.

There are some great critical analysis on the internet that come from non-professionals who know what constitutes a great film. Some might be Team Goodfellas versus Team The Godfather, but can ultimately conclude both are considered "good films". It's safe to assume choosing between Team Amadeus and Team Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is not purely based of personal preference.

Some viral professionals gladly use the internet to their advantage. Like the super-funny guys at spill.com. I'm a big fan. Their analyses balance everyman rhetoric with a hint of professional criticism.

I would take the internet with a grain a salt. Like television before it, it can be used for good (PBS!) or it can be used for evil (Jersey Shore).

Happy Filmmaking!

HELP! I'm under spam attack!!!!

I come here to write about an online posted letter to Variety about their subscriptions, and all of a sudden I see spam as postings! Let's get one thing straight, I am not trying to sell you Viagra or give you a virus. Dang, I'm so mad, I can't even write anything catchy about this article.

Here is what I was planning to write about! Damn, spammers. I hate those guys.

Happy Filmmaking!

The Blurry Line Between Video Games and Film

In 2006, my alma mater changed its name from USC School of Cinema-Television to USC School of Cinematic Arts. Why the change? School officials noted the emergence of video game and interactive media in the curriculum and felt the name change was best suited for the school's 21-st century image.

If you think about it, many amateurs already use video games to crossover in filmmaking. The so-called YouTube phenomenon known as machinima is similar to fan fiction in the early days of the world wide web. Unlike fan fiction, however, these video game fans usually make up their own characters and storylines, similar to an actual film production. The videos are staged, edited, and posted for other fans to enjoy.

Some games incorporate filmmaking into their gameplay, like the game I'm addicted to, The Sims 2. I already use The Sims to build families and set Sim A with Sim B so that Sim C can inherit Sim D's money when she croaks, so making a film with the game is not to large of a stretch. Check out the music video I made with just my game and that amateurish video editing system known as Windows Moviemaker.

Happy Filmmaking!

Can Indies survive the bear market?

That is the question. Whereas most economists call the Hollywood film industry "recession-proof," the opposite exists for us small guys, the indie film geeks. Over at fivesprockets.com, blogger Ann Curry pleas with her readers to support those who give us more cinematic bang for our buck.

Indie filmmaking is similar to other small business. In a bear market, they are the first to fold, while the public still supports the big guys, deemed "too big to fail." Unlike other small businesses, however, the success of production companies depend more so on the public's opinion of its entertainment, rather than any inherent demand or need. John Q. Public may still go to blockbuster superhero movie rather than small art house film because he feels art house films do not speak to him or for him.

Filmmaking is an expensive and elitist endeavor, but as the nation's most recognizable artform, it preserves our American way of life. Who says it should only be for the studios?

Personally, I don't let my lack of funds or resources stop me from reaching my filmmaking goals. One just has to be smart and one step ahead of the snake oil salesmen on craigslist and the like.

Happy Filmmaking.

A great (and cheap) concept

Recently, I came across this website called 5 Second Films. The site, as well as the videos, are created by two USC film school graduates (shout out to my fellow Trojans!). Not counting the titles, each film is exactly five seconds each.

I believe this would be a great exercise for any filmmaker. So much has to be conveyed in such a short amount of time, that it forces the filmmakers to get to the point. The 5 Second Films (or 5SF) usually consist of some type of joke concept easily conveyed in the time given. Some of the films seem pretty out there, but overall, not a bad idea.

You should make your own five or ten-second film. Come up with a concept and plan accordingly. As long as you have some type of camera, willing friends--I mean--"actors," some type of editing system, and interesting props, sky's the limit!

Kudos to the filmmakers for their editing skills. I had to post one of my favorite here!



Happy Filmmaking