Will 'Paranormal Activity' Teach The Movie Industry A Lesson?

from the Blair-Witch-wannabes dept

I have to admit I don't usually like scary movies, and I didn't like the Blair Witch Project at all. But I can't help but be impressed that the Blair Witch movie cost just $60,000 and pulled in a cool $140 million back in 1999. That kind of return makes me wonder why more movies aren't filmed on really small budgets. So it's somewhat surprising to see that it took about a decade for another Blair Witch-like film to get promoted by a major studio... and that a perfect candidate was almost missed. The movie Paranormal Activity was apparently filmed for just $11,000 over 7 days, and it was bought by DreamWorks/Paramount -- which originally planned to shelve the low-budget flick and re-make it with bigger stars and a much higher budget.

Goodman also admitted that DreamWorks, formerly a leg of Paramount co-headed by Steven Spielberg, had swooped in and pocketed 'Paranormal Activity' with every intention of leaving it on the shelf and remaking it with a big budget and marquee stars. Then they wised up. 

They wised up indeed, and they also started promoting this movie in an interesting way, too -- by getting potential fans to demand it be shown in their neighborhoods and nationwide. Paramount promised to distribute the movie nationwide if a million requests for the movie were logged via Eventful. And it looks like they've already reached that goal.

As I said, I didn't like Blair Witch very much, and I'm not exactly looking forward to this movie, either. But from a pure business angle, it seems a bit shocking that movie studios wouldn't be trying to find/create more low-budget films that would appeal to moviegoers. Promoting the distribution of films in a way that actually target fans is a smart move, too. So with this example, there are about a million customers (or at least thousands, if you don't believe the Eventful numbers) willing to pay to see this movie that was made for (much) less than a $1 per fan -- and the movie studio's first gut-instinct was to try to re-make the film and drive their own costs up? It's a strange industry where insiders are always asking "how can we make a $200 million movie?" rather than how can they make good, but profitable movies, no matter what the cost. The industry seems so focused on what movies cost, that it so rarely seems to consider spending money more intelligently. Creating quality works for less, and targeting your best customers is a plan that's foreign to Hollywood, but perhaps it's about time they start exploring that plotline.

Filed Under: cheap, movies, paranormal activity
Companies: dreamworks, paramount

Disney Appreciation Student Group Told They Can't Get Together To Watch Disney Movies

from the hurray-for-IP-law dept

Via Copycense, we learn that the students who formed the Disney Movie Appreciation Club at Washington University in St. Louis recently had to shut down the club due to threats of IP infringement, because the students were gathering together to watch the legally obtained movies, without getting a proper license for showing it to a larger group of people (rather than just a few people). The link above decries how separated IP laws have become from their intended purpose when a group of true fans of Disney movies can't even get together to watch them, without having to get some special license:

It makes no more sense to prohibit the viewing of a movie by multiple people than it does to prohibit the viewing of a portrait by multiple people. The people watching these films are not evil, conniving scammers out to claim Disney's films as their own. They are simply fans of Disney movies who want to take a break from studying and relax with a few friends.... Ultimately, however, I am not on a crusade against all forms of copyright. I just want to watch my movies in peace.

And, another generation of students is learning how copyright is so often abused, not to create incentives for content creation, but as a tool of control.

Filed Under: copyright, fans, movies, students
Companies: disney, washington university

Forget Piracy Or Boxee... Could Netflix Take Down Cable?

from the submarine-innovation dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the recent Wired Magazine article talking about how Netflix's online streaming offering may be a disruptive innovation that takes down cable. The thinking is that, with Netflix service being built into lots of different settop devices, and the ability to watch various TV shows that are offered via DVD (and the Netflix streaming service, as well), why would people need cable any more? They can just wait until the "video" is out, and stream it via Netflix. The article may go a bit far in proclaiming Netflix as the winner of this battle right now, but it does suggest that (whether it's Netflix or some other provider) the model that cable television has relied on for so many years is certainly facing a pretty big disruption, one way or another.

Filed Under: cable, dvds, movies, streaming
Companies: netflix

Filmmaker Discusses Creative Marketing, Freeing Up Movies, Embracing New Business Models

from the sounds-cool dept

Nathan Smith alerts us to an interesting interview with filmmaker Sally Potter, discussing her new movie Rage, which has a variety of unique and interesting facets to it. The movie -- which has a bunch of famous actors, including Jude Law, Judi Dench, Steve Buscemi, Diane Wiest, John Leguizamo and others -- is being released first on mobile phones, with a different part of it released each day for a week (I believe this past week). The film is supposed to be from the view of a cameraphone, so that makes sense. But, Potter has also worked hard to cultivate a strong fanbase through a variety of online methods. And, of course, she's all about embracing "free," embracing what the technology enables, and thinks the rest of Hollywood is a bit silly to live in fear and try to lock everything down:

FNB: It's true, everyone is talking about this, what is the economic model? Is there one?

SP: Not yet. The music industry is slightly ahead of us and had to go through the same thing already and it's shock, horror, terror, everyone's going to go bankrupt because everyone can have everything for free. Lots of resistance, I'm talking about filmmaking now, legislating against copyright and everything is watermarked, anxious, anxious, and all that. And I think my attitude is, go the other way. Open the gates, say "okay have it." It's free, it's yours and then if you want me to go on and make other things, you're going to have to complete the circle by going out and buying the DVD. Maybe in the future it will be some sort of subscription model but I always wanted to do that with this one.

FNB: There was a recent article we read that said the next generation of digital consumers still wants to pay to go to theaters. It's not mutually exclusive, which is calming to know that just because one is succeeding doesn't mean the other is going to disappear.

SP: Its not either/or, it's AND. It might make cinema owners and distributors sit up a little bit, and make it a more pleasant and thrilling experience to go to the theater, make the quality of the projection better, the seats more comfortable, make it back to the real beginnings of what joining together in a big group is all about. Similar people can have their own access to watch it home on Blu-ray, its one of the things that I do. I have a good screen and I watch things together with a group of friends. Comfortably lying about. And that feel just as true of a cinema experience as going to some wonderful cinema.

Indeed. We've been pointing out for the better part of a decade that going to the movies is a social experience, and the best way to do that is to make that experience better. Many theaters have started to catch on to this (finally).

Filed Under: business models, economics, free, movies, sally potter

Paul Graham: Content Really Was Just A Way To Mark Up Paper

from the welcome-to-the-future dept

YCombinator creator Paul Graham is the latest "deep thinker" to grasp the deeper economic meaning of infinite goods: they can't be sold. In fact, Graham recognizes that there's never been a real content business. It's always been about selling the scarcity:

Almost every form of publishing has been organized as if the medium was what they were selling, and the content was irrelevant. Book publishers, for example, set prices based on the cost of producing and distributing books. They treat the words printed in the book the same way a textile manufacturer treats the patterns printed on its fabrics.

Economically, the print media are in the business of marking up paper. We can all imagine an old-style editor getting a scoop and saying "this will sell a lot of papers!" Cross out that final S and you're describing their business model. The reason they make less money now is that people don't need as much paper.

He goes on to explore how this applies to music, movies, books, newspapers and software. From there, he comes to the same conclusion many of us have been discussing for years:

What happens to publishing if you can't sell content? You have two choices: give it away and make money from it indirectly, or find ways to embody it in things people will pay for.

The first is probably the future of most current media. Give music away and make money from concerts and t-shirts. Publish articles for free and make money from one of a dozen permutations of advertising. Both publishers and investors are down on advertising at the moment, but it has more potential than they realize.

I'm not claiming that potential will be realized by the existing players. The optimal ways to make money from the written word probably require different words written by different people.

Good stuff and worth reading the whole thing, though I think he misses one key important ingredient. If you take a step back and look at the overall economics of such markets, you quickly realize how much bigger they get when you free the content from the constraints and scarcity of physical media. This is the hardest part for some people to see, at times, but the key to recognizing it is realizing that the content itself is a resource, rather than a final product, and you've just increased the availability and massively decreased the cost of that resource -- and you can then use it (for free!) to make many other things more valuable. That, in a nutshell, is the most exciting part about freeing up digital content.

Filed Under: business models, content, economics, movies, music, paul graham, software

Win A Copy Of Kevin Smith's New Book

from the connecting-through-contests dept

We recently wrote about how Kevin Smith was connecting with fans in a variety of ways, and after doing so, some of "his people" (see? I got this movie business lingo down) contacted us to see if we wanted to give away some copies of his new book, Shootin' the Sh*t with Kevin Smith: The Best of SMODCAST. So, we said sure, because we're told by people all the time that Techdirt readers "just want stuff for free." These aren't signed books or anything -- we tried, and apparently we're not cool enough and the signed ones are a reason to buy, so if you want that, pay up, cheapskate. But, hey, these books are still free. What are you complaining about?

Anyway... I've put together some trivia questions, which shouldn't be that hard to answer if you listen to Smodcast regularly (or if you're a creative Googler). Alternatively, write up a comment about something having to do with Kevin Smith or his movies, and make it funny, cool or original (preferably all three). Anyway, we've got five books. There are three trivia questions. The first person to answer any one of the trivia questions correctly gets a book (if you know the answer to more than one question, don't be that guy -- we know you're awesome; just let someone else get it). Then we'll take the two best Kevin Smith stories and award the books to them. If, by Monday night, no one's been able to figure out the answers to trivia questions (and, who knows, maybe I'll give hints), then for every unanswered trivia question, we'll pick another "Kevin Smith story" writer. Oh yeah, make sure you include a working email in the email box so we can contact you and work out the details. If we can't reach you or you don't respond to our emails in time, the free book goes on to the next winner... That's about the deal. This is intended to be fun, so don't go nuts over it. Silent Bob wouldn't approve.

Trivia questions (remember, just answer one):

1. When Clerks was first shown at Cannes, what famous rocker did Scott Mosier have to go wake up on that rocker's yacht one morning?
2. Kevin's got some dogs (three, I believe). One has a habit of interrupting SModcast with barks, and recently traveled to NY to bark on a special east coast SMod. Name the dog...
3. Smith recently got to meet the father of one of his heroes, who he's suggested there should be a new religion around. Who did he meet?

Again, if you're the first to get any of those right, you get a book. If you get more than one right, you still get just one book, but whoever is quick and copies your second answer in the next comment gets the next book. If you don't know any of these... start listening to SModcasts, or write a cool story that involves Kevin or (more likely) his movies. Update: Wow, you guys are fast. All three trivia questions answered. But, now we're still open for stories: talk about Kevin or how he influenced your life in some way and a book could be yours...

Filed Under: book, connecting with fans, fans, kevin smith, movies, scott mosier, smodcast

Movie Industry Overreaction: Attacking Fan Subbers

from the how-does-this-make-sense? dept

We've wondered in the past why the movie industry tries to shut down fansub efforts. It makes no sense. These projects tend to increase attention for a particular movie by making it accessible to those who couldn't enjoy the movie before. And yet, once again, we see stories of movie studios going after sites that are doing free labor for the studios in helping them translate the movies into other languages. In this case, they're demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars from three people who helped translate a bunch of films, and run a site for more such fansubs. What a world we live in when those who do free labor for you are worthy of being sued for huge cash amounts.

Filed Under: fansubs, movies, subtitles

Kevin Smith: Connects Again, Says Pirates Lead To Converts

from the indeed dept

A few months back, I wrote about how director Kevin Smith (who's most well known for Clerks, but has done plenty of other stuff as well) is showing how the old CwF + RtB formula works in the movie business as well. Smith has gone above and beyond (and crazy far beyond that) in connecting with his fans in all sorts of ways. Beyond just making cool movies, he has a fun (mostly) weekly podcast, a blog (which he doesn't use as much any more), web forums and he regularly does Q&A sessions that are somewhat legendary and hilarious (check YouTube).

Recently, he jump onto the Twitter bandwagon and hasn't looked back (it explains why the blog has gone mostly silent), and he interacts with all sorts of fans that way. Last week, he announced that for Labor Day, he would do a 24-hour Twitter marathon, taking and answering questions from fans. It started up around 8am Monday morning, and was fun to follow along with (including some back and forth with Ben Stiller, who lives in Kevin's neighborhood, and has a house that Kevin wants...). Yet another example of connecting with fans -- though, every here and there he interspersed it with links to things to buy, such as a book made from some "best of" moments from the podcast, called Shootin' the Sh*t with Kevin Smith.

Smith seems to have the whole CwF+RtB thing down cold -- and has for many years. But, given all of that, I had no idea what his opinion was on the question of "piracy." While he notes, at one point, that Disney will own the rights to his movies forever, someone asks "How much money do you think your projects have lost to piracy?" to which Kevin responds:

See, I think "How many more converts did I get from piracy?"

Bingo. The smart creator these days looks to use "piracy" to his advantage. Smith has done that and more. Hell, we all wish that our favorite creators made plenty of money any time anyone viewed/heard/experienced their content -- but that's not the way the world works. So why not figure out ways to use what the world is doing to your advantage? Many have figured it out -- and yet the industry bigwigs and lawyers continue to insist it's impossible. Oh, and I'm looking forward to (finally) seeing Kevin Smith do a Q&A live later this year as part of his fall tour -- for which I was happy to give him money, once again, disproving Hollywood lawyers insistence that fans just want everything for free. Luckily, Smith doesn't appear to be listening to the lawyers in his neighborhood, and it seems like he's better off for it.

Filed Under: connecting with fans, fans, kevin smith, movies, twitter

Does No One Remember That Google Tried And Failed To 'Rent' Videos Online In The Past?

from the short-memory-syndrome dept

The tech press is excitedly discussing the fact that YouTube is looking to work with movie studios to allow movie rentals, with many talking up how this is a way for Google to put in place a new business model for YouTube. But here's the thing: everyone seems to forget that, back when Google first launched Google Video (which was a competitor to YouTube before Google bought YouTube and merged the two), it was based on this very idea. You could "buy" videos on the site to watch. And what happened? It failed pretty miserably. People just weren't interested. Instead, they flocked to YouTube to get all that free content and community, and Google quietly changed around Google Videos' entire business model and concept, and then eventually realized that it couldn't compete, and so it bought YouTube.

So why would people suddenly be willing to pay when something that sounds nearly identical a few years ago failed to get much interest at all? Perhaps culture or technology has changed (it's easier to watch downloaded movies on a TV screen, certainly). But, I have to admit to being rather skeptical of this as a big business opportunity. We've already seen this movie, and it didn't end well.

Filed Under: content, movies, rent, videos, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

Movie Makers Use 'Fake' Piracy Numbers To Score Distribution Deal

from the well,-good-for-them? dept

The NY Times recently had a blog post noting that the makers of an $850,000 romantic comedy called X's and O's were thrilled that their movie was widely shared on file sharing networks, because the attention it got helped land them a big DVD distribution deal, and potentially a television deal, helped along by the attention received from that file sharing. Of course, there's just one little problem. The FreakBits guys noticed that the number of downloads the movies' creators are citing are almost certainly false. Apparently some sites post fake download numbers as a part of their advertising, and the movie makers used those fake numbers. But... it seemed to get them attention to get more deals, so more power to them. No matter what, it suggests that (once again) obscurity is a much bigger problem than piracy.

Filed Under: bittorrent, downloads, fake, movies, obscurity, publicity