Wattpad is the Youtube for writing

Posted on July 13, 2016 by Michael Korican

Nicole LaPorte writes in Fast Company about ‘How A Toronto-Based Storytelling App Is Becoming A Hollywood Idea Factory‘.

That app is Wattpad, a creative writing social media space.

With 45 million monthly users, Hollywood has marketed numerous films and television shows on the platform.

“But now Wattpad wants to more than just help Hollywood market its wares, it wants to help create those wares. Emboldened by the success of Wattpad author Anna Todd, whose serialized story After (over 1.3 billion reads and more than 6 million comments) was optioned in 2014 by Paramount and is being developed into a feature film (it has also been published as a book by Simon & Schuster), Wattpad has created Wattpad Studios, an in-house production company of sorts that will help identify the next Todd’s and partner them with movie studios and TV and digital networks. The hope is to churn out Wattpad-inspired entertainment.”

Wattpad can do that because they have their finger on the pulse of the community.

“Wattpad’s 2 million writers are different from print authors for a variety of reasons. They publish their stories on the fly, posting chapters as soon as they finish them, rather than going through an editing and publishing process that can take months, even years. They also have a very active relationship with their fans which gives them a unique power that studios and networks can use for their own benefit as they’re developing a Wattpad project.”

Moreover, they’ve already succeeded in doing this in the Philippines with a TV series called Wattpad Presents.

As quoted on Mashable, Aron Levitz, head of Wattpad Studios, points out:

“We have a distinct advantage over other social networks who trade in images or talent. We trade in the atomic unit of the entertainment and publishing industry: Stories.”

My take: I find it interesting that a social media platform seeks to intermediate between a creator and an industry, presumably for a cut of the deal. True, they created the platform allowing writers to create for and communicate directly with their audiences. Is this just another way of saying talent is always rewarded? Is this truly a new economic model, or is it just using the crowd to read the slush pile? I want it to be the former but until the money starts flowing in a new way, I think it’s the latter.

A new role for film critics

Posted on July 6, 2016 by Michael Korican

Richard Brody writes in the New York TImes that ‘Our Dated Model of Theatrical Release Is Hurting Independent Cinema‘.

His thesis is that ‘part of the blame lies with a system of tacit complicity between critics and the industry that poses obstacles to the recognition of independent films’ because any film that has not played for a week in a cinema is considered not to have been released.

Therefore those films remain ‘unreleased’ and not worthy of reviews. Recognition, distribution and monetization then is harder to come by.

Meanwhile, say hello to the Internet. VOD and sVOD platforms effectively sidestep ‘real life’ exhibition.

Brody feels critics are ignoring independent film and asks them to change:

“It’s up to critics and editors to acknowledge what was already clear in 1969 — the realm of movies, their substance and their distribution, has changed drastically, and the practice of criticism needs to catch up with it. What’s both stressful and great about this prospect is that it vastly expands the pool of movies at hand. Critics can no longer keep their heads down and look at a fixed and stable list of releases; they have to do some research and some extra viewing to determine what constitutes, in their eyes, the day’s notable releases. This practice would shift power away from industry executives in determining what’s reviewed. Critics themselves would gain both the power and the responsibility; rather than responding to a pre-existing cultural agenda, critics would be setting it. Rather than interpreting the cinema, they’d be changing it — and that’s precisely the point.”

My take: I agree with Brody wholeheartedly. He’s describing the difference between a movie reviewer and a film critic. As people lose interest in Hollywood, they need guides to help them find their way in the mediascape to great indie films.

Scientific insights into storytelling

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Michael Korican

Jeremy Adam Smith illustrates in a Greater Good post, The Science of the Story, the emerging understanding of neuropsychology in storytelling.

He posits:

“Experiencing a story alters our neurochemical processes, and stories are a powerful force in shaping human behavior.”

He goes on to discuss negativity bias, stress, adrenaline and cortisol.

“When someone starts a story with a ‘dragon,’ they’re harnessing negativity bias and manipulating the stress response, whether they intend to or not. We’re attracted to stressful stories because we are always afraid that it could happen to us, whatever “it” is — and we want to imagine how we would deal with all the many kinds of dragons that could rear up in our lives, from family strife to layoffs to crime.”

Jeremy then explains how likeable characters stimulate our brains to release the neuropeptide called oxytocin. And, finally, dopamine.

“That’s when the storytelling miracle comes to pass: As the cortisol that feeds attention mixes with the oxytocin of care, we experience a phenomenon called ‘transportation.’ Transportation happens when attention and anxiety join with our empathy. In other words, we’re hooked. For the duration of the story, our fates become intertwined with those of imaginary people. If the story has a happy ending, it triggers the limbic system, the brain’s reward center, to release dopamine. We might be overcome by a feeling of optimism — the same one characters are experiencing on the page or screen.”

Why would we evolve to crave stories?

“We need to know about problems and how to solve them, which can enhance our survival as individuals and as a species. Without a problem for the characters to solve, there is no story.”

Watch neuroeconomist Paul Zak‘s video Empathy, Neurochemistry, and the Dramatic Arc.

My take: I like the both the big picture and the details; Zak’s research helps me understand storytelling further and makes me think of the seven basic plots and creativity templates.

Europe moves to protect VoD

Posted on June 1, 2016 by Michael Korican

As reported on Screen Daily, the European Commission is proposing that one of out five titles on Video on Demand platforms be European.

“The updated Audiovisual Directive will enforce VoD platforms such as Netflix to ensure at least a 20% share of European content in their catalogues. The new proposals will also give the possibility for the EU member states to impose financial contributions upon on-demand services to the production and rights acquisition of European works.”

The new rules are outlined in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), under clause three: Promotion of European Works.

My take: it’s about time. Quotas work to establish a domestic industry. Just see how successful CanCom has been for Canadian music and television. With this measure, the Europeans are ending the free ride for VoD services. Too bad we don’t have the guts to enact this and movie screen quotas in Canada.

Snapchat: live, stock and hype

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Michael Korican

Today, to millennials, many new media celebrities are bigger than old media celebrities.

So what do you do when you have over 2.5 million Youtube subscribers?

If you’re Andrea Russett you partner with Indigenous Media and make a horror feature over five days using Snapchat, in 10 second ‘broadcasts’.

The story concerns the hunted Sickhouse, its urban legends, Russett and her friends — invoking a nod to The Blair Witch Project, one of the first word-of-mouth found footage success stories and the most successful one by box office.

Then, in true Snapchat fashion, the clips started disappearing from view 24 hours after being posted.

Don’t dispair, though. The director’s cut will be available for everyone on Vimeo on June 2. You can pre-order now.

Why is ‘Canadian films on Canadian screens’ such a radical idea?

Posted on May 18, 2016 by Michael Korican

Thirty years ago, I organized two film screening series in Toronto at the Bloor CInema called Toronto Film Now and later Film Can.

What was my motivation? My thoughts at the time were:

“In a sense, it’s a radical thing to see Canadian films on a Canadian screen. So it has to been done slowly. But ideally we would have Canadian films on Canadian screens, and the people that are making these films would be able to work with larger budgets and do films that they’re interested in doing in Canada for Canadians.”

See Steve Grant interview me on Maclean-Hunter‘s Community Link cable TV show on February 25, 1986.

Are we better off today?

The Canadian film industry has always found it difficult to exhibit films in Canada. Even Telefilm has given up on shooting for 5% of the box office, though we now have an annual National Canadian Film Day.

My take: I wonder where we’ll be in thirty more years. Will we still be going to the movies? While the majority of tickets are purchased by heavy moviegoers, one third of Canadians just don’t go to the movies at all. Cinema attendance peaked in 2002 and is down almost 20% since then. By the way, that’s the date when approximately 10% of the world got online; today it’s more than half. Coincidence? I think not.

10 Things to Never Say to a Filmmaker

Posted on May 11, 2016 by Michael Korican

It’s an old post, but I recently stumbled upon The Blue Streak‘s 10 Things to Never Say to a Filmmaker.

Gwydhar Gebien lists and discusses:

Oh, you’re an independent filmmaker.

So what’s your favorite movie?

What do you mean you’ve never heard of (name of filmmaker)?

Can you really call yourself a filmmaker when you just shoot digitally?

Everyone is a filmmaker these days.

But what’s your real job?

You should start a YouTube channel!

Why not just make a video and post it online and make it go viral?

Hey my [kid/niece/nephew/neighbor] is a filmmaker…

So when are you going to Cannes/Sundance/Tribecca/SXSW?

My favourite is Number 4: can you be a filmmaker if you shoot digital? As if you have a choice.

My take: too funny! See also, 24 Of The Worst Things You Can Say To A Writer.

Is the Internet making it easier to tell stories? Or harder?

Posted on April 27, 2016 by Michael Korican

Scott Beggs of FilmSchoolRejects recently wrote an interesting piece about storytelling in our digital age.

In it he holds:

“Going behind the scenes has become the scene. Trailers have become the true first act of any movie. Casting announcements introduce us to characters now.”

Our digital age means almost all information is at hand, which implies, “We’re now fully an anti-shock culture.”

He goes on to discuss Batman v Superman and — spoiler alert — the Man of Steel’s demise. Apparently director Christopher Nolan wanted to hold on the casket shot and then cut to the credits, without any dirt floating up, the idea being to leave the audience thinking he’s gone, bit the dirt, so to speak. (Disclosure — I have not seen this film.)

Scott then points out that actor Henry Cavill has been announced for The Justice League (2017) — thereby resurrecting the Last Son of Krypton.

My take: I think this is can only be true. The sheer amount of information and the myriad ways we have available to access it mean we can’t help but be exposed to official and fan-provided media around any project. In the past, only big companies could feed us a steady diet of advertising and PR — now we gorge non-stop at the Information Super-Highway All-You-Can-Eat Buffet. See also, Scott’s post on Every Movie is a TV Show is a Book is a Broadway Play is a Video Game. More and more, a Producer’s job is to manage IP rights and not necessarily just to produce a feature or a TV show.

Script analysis proves women are underrepresented

Posted on April 20, 2016 by Michael Korican

Hanah Anderson and Matt Daniels of Polygraph recently analyzed over 2,000 screenplays to research gender trends in Hollywood movies.

They state:

“We compiled the number of words spoken by male and female characters across roughly 2,000 films, arguably the largest undertaking of script analysis, ever.”

Their conclusion:

“Across thousands of films in our dataset, it was hard to find a subset that didn’t over-index male. Even romantic comedies have dialogue that is, on average, 58% male.”

Other takeaways:

Only 22% of the films featured female leads.
38% of dialogue spoken by women is by women 22-31 years old.
39% of dialogue spoken by men is by men 42-65 years old.

My take: kudos to the team for doing this analysis — it confirms what we already knew. I particularly like their interactive charts! For more data on Hollywood, see this.

Avi Delivers!

Posted on April 13, 2016 by Michael Korican

Within the next week, Avi Federgreen and IndieCan will unspool five new Canadian feature films in theatres in Toronto, Vancouver, Saskatoon, Regina, Halifax and Moncton.

The films are:

They are some of the results of Federgreen’s IndieCan10K project. Along with executive producers in each province, Avi mentored emerging filmmakers as they created their first features — as long as they kept the budgets under $10,000.

As quoted on First Weekend Club, Federgreen says:

“I believe initiatives like INDIECAN10K are imperative to the success and survival of the Canadian film industry, which is facing increasingly difficult parameters for young filmmakers. We need to encourage emerging filmmakers in Canada to get out there and make their first feature, and we need to show them they can make a great film for a very low budget. The filmmakers that participated in the INDIECAN10K initiative are all amazing, passionate and creative people who deserved a chance to make their first feature and I think they all deserve all the success in the world not only for their INDIECAN10K films but their next films moving forward. I am super proud of all of them!”

My take: Telefilm take note! I love your microbudget initiative, but I firmly believe $100K is too much for first-time feature filmmakers. Ingrid Veninger ($1K) and Avi Federgreen ($10K) prove it. My modest suggestion: reserve the $100K money for second-time feature filmmakers. I guarantee the results will warrant it — let emerging filmmakers scrape up just enough cash to make their first features and, more importantly, make all their mistakes making their first features. Their second features (if they survive to do it again) are where you want to invest.

Michael Korican Thinks

Thoughts on Independent Filmmaking and the Emerging Economic System

Category Archives: The Mediascape