VR stats from England

Posted on August 10, 2016 by Michael Korican

Charlotte Rogers of Marketing Week in the UK has reported a raft of VR statistics that are very interesting.

Very nice graphs show:

Consumer Sentiments on Virtual Reality
What Experiences Would You Like to Have When Using Virtual Reality?
What Sorts of Places Would You Like to Get Virtuality Reality Content Related to Your Interests From?

In terms of winning content, the survey points to new, unique experiences as being the most diserable:

“The ability to travel to different cities proves the most popular VR application at 56%, followed by being in the crowd at a concert (52%) and fantasy scenarios, such as flying or walking on water (45%).”

See the original Ipsos MORI media release and raw data.

My take: I just don’t know. Is VR/360 a technology in search of it’s killer app? Or — ? I can’t help but remember the trailer for The Matrix — I think we’ve seen this movie before.

The state of VR to date, in one page

Posted on August 3, 2016 by Michael Korican

Janessa Nichole White of VR Dribble offers the best summary of Virtual Reality to date.

She summarizes:

VR revenue projections
VR market demographics
VR hardware sales
Content that doesn’t work in VR
Content that works in VR
VR gadgets
Privacy and data tracking in VR

Regarding content that works in VR, she lists:

Stationary and interactive puzzle games
Horror
On-rails vehicle
Using 1-to-1 motion controls
Using head as a cursor
Teleporting from place-to-place
Travel and music experiences
Social engagement
1st person story segments

She closes with:

“The vernacular hasn’t been created. There are many obstacles in building a VR game or story. The hardware still has room to improve. Despite all of the above, it sure is an exciting time to be alive.”

My take: if you think 360 is just a fad, check out Say Lou Lou‘s Blue on Blue music video for a perfect example of the plasticity of cinema — in four dimensions. It will blow your mind.

Flowchart: What to do after film school

Posted on July 27, 2016 by Michael Korican

MovieMaker has put together a funny flowchart for film school grads.

It asks a series of questions and depending on your answers, steers you to one of nine occupations.

For instance:

“I went to film school so that I could one day…

Express my original vision

How original?

Well, sort of original

I survived film school…

By stealing ideas from classical films

I want to live:

In Austen —

Indie Auteur!“

My take: I think this is hilarious, particularly as we get ready to relaunch the Short Circuit Film Festival. The convo goes something like this:

“I went to film school so that I could one day…

Work with my cinematic heroes.

I survived film school…

By buttering up my profs

I like to work:

Irregularly —

Festival Director!“

360 is not VR, but still cool

Posted on July 20, 2016 by Michael Korican

VR. 360. The next big thing? The same thing?

No, they’re quite different. Blame Apple’s Quicktime VR for mixing up the two. (Released in 1994, QTVR was essentially a single frame from any of today’s 360 videos, not truly a virtual reality environment.)

Raindance‘s Baptiste Charles-Aubert makes a pointed distinction: ‘360 is immersive as opposed to VR which is interactive‘:

“In a Virtual Reality setting, the viewer/player leads. With 360, as filmmakers, we need to keep control over the narrative and push it forward. That’s what happens with 360. The viewer is experiencing a story happening around him and not to him. The physical location then matters even more in 360.”

One neat example of 360 documentary filmmaking is a series of Paul McCartney ‘interviews’ by Jaunt.

Their 360 technology is impressive, with no discernible ‘stitching‘.

My take: If the selfie is the painted self-portrait digitized, what is the equivalent documentary or narrative film? Will it utilize VR or 360? Or are those technologies reserved for something else? The modern, introspective equivalent of album liner notes, perhaps?

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.

How to finance your independent movie

Posted on June 29, 2016 by Michael Korican

Ben Yennie‘s post on Medium, The 9 Ways to Finance an Independent Film, is one of the clearest summaries of film funding I’ve seen.

He breaks your funding sources into nine categories:

Skin in the Game
Soft Money/Deferments
Crowdfunding
Tax Incentives
Private Equity
Gap Debt
Product Placement/Sponsorship
Pre-Sales
Grants

“A lot of Filmmakers are only concerned with finding investors for their projects. While films require money to be made well, there are better ways to find that money than convincing a rich person to part with a few hundred thousand dollars. Even if you are able to get an angel investor (or a few) on board, it’s often not in your best interest to raise your budget solely from private equity, as the more you raise the less likely it is you’ll ever see money from the back end of your project.”

Ben also provides a graphic in which he displays a typical breakdown for three projects: first narrative feature, documentary feature, and second or third narrative feature.

It’s somewhat difficult to read, but here’s my best guess:

A. Narrative Feature

1 – 10%
2 – 10%
3 – 20%
4 – 20%
5 – 20%
6 – 20%

B. Documentary Feature

1 – 10%
3 – 20%
4 – 20%
7 – 10%
8 – 20%
9 – 20%

C. Second or Third Narrative Feature

3 – 10%
4 – 20%
5 – 20%
6 – 20%
7 – 10%
8 – 20%

Ben also has an excellent post called The 12 Slides you Need in your IndieFilm Investment Deck which you can use as an outline for your next pitch video.

My take: I love the visual which I think of as depicting your full budget as a pie of six flavours! Some are tastier than others and some come with strings attached. But the unsaid truth is that it’s difficult to bake this pie in only one flavour.

A film festival for every film

Posted on June 22, 2016 by Michael Korican

With something like over 3,000 active film festivals around the world, there’s a film festival for every type of film.

And now, there’s even one dedicated to drone filming: FRiFF.

Filmmakers looking for validation from juries can search for suitable festivals on Withoutabox or FilmFreeway.

Just be sure festival exposure is a component of your overall distribution and marketing strategy.

My take: that’s it — I’m going to start my own film festival. Coming to cyberspace soon! Even if Robert Redford once said there are too many film festivals….

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.

How does your film festival stack up?

Posted on June 8, 2016 by Michael Korican

Stephen Elliott recently posted The Great Film Festival Swindle on The Rumpus.

It’s a fascinating read for filmmakers about to devise a film festival strategy.

The issue is that you need people to see your film — you need to find your audience.

It seems obvious that film festivals can deliver that audience to you.

But it turns out that not all film festivals are created equal. In fact, some are much better than others. And some are downright greedy.

Elliott started with the question, “Why are film festival submission fees so high?” and then started digging and ended up unearthing some invaluable data he now shares with us all.

In essence, he cross-referenced the stories film festivals and filmmakers told him. He was particularly concerned with a film paying the submission fee and its chances of actually being selected. It turns out that over twenty well-known film festivals in the last couple of years collected feature film submission fees but only programmed invited films or ones that had a waiver — none of the films that paid the fees got in.

Elliott asks:

“Is it okay to fund a festival based on exorbitant submission fees and not program the movies that are paying the fees? It’s as if the losers were throwing a party for the winners.”

According to Elliott’s research, the top seven “level-playing field” film festivals are:

For a balanced view, see The Other Side’s Truths about Film Festival Submission Fees.

My take: I’ve had a feature and a few shorts screen at film festivals. It’s nice! It strokes your ego. But the brutal truth is that the explosion of content today means you now have to pay (and pay big) to get into film festivals. It’s almost a full-time job researching, submitting, paying, following up, delivering media, promoting and, potentially, attending film festivals. Be sure the exposure plays into your overall marketing plan. Added thought: I challenge all film festivals to publish their ratio of fee-paying selections to invited or fee-waived selections.

Michael Korican Thinks

Thoughts on Independent Filmmaking and the Emerging Economic System