Thanks for nothin'!

Remember those halcyon days when the web was abuzz with the idea that a dedicated writer could wax poetic on their blog and actually get paid for it...  The two main sources of income usually presented were Google Adsense and Amazon Associates.

Google Adsense is responsible for some of the ads you see down the right side of my page.  Most times they actually have some relevance to my content.  In the year and a half since I started yammering away on this blog I've had roughly 450,000 pageviews, which I imagine puts me in the upper-middle of traffic for all blogs. Now, I'm not trying to brag here, it's just that the reality is that the vast majority of folks who start a blog never get viewed by anyone other than their friends or family.  And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So those 450,000 pageviews are way more than I ever had expected, and mostly due to one crazy rant on Hollywood color grading.

Go figure.

Anyway, 42 folks have actually clicked on one of those Google-supplied ads (most of them probably just an accidental mis-click).

So what have I been paid so far from Google?

Nothing.

Zip.

Nada.

All those eyeballs, and 42 actual clickthroughs have netted me zero dollars.

Now, that's not to say I will never get paid... Here's the dealio:

Google is keeping $50.78 of my hard-earned money hostage.  Here's how they justify that.  Once you earn $10 for them, you get the privilege of filling out a form to indicate how you'd like to be paid from them.  This sounds very exciting.  Most bloggers will never even get to this point.  However, when you read the fine print at the bottom, a shocking bit of tom-foolery is revealed.

They will not send you any money until you have earned $100 dollars.  Let me state that again.  YOU WILL RECEIVE NO PAYMENTS UNTIL YOU HAVE EARNED $100!  Now, the vast majority of bloggers will never ever, ever in a thousand years reach this point.  And Google knows this.  The corporation that prides itself with the motto "Do No Evil" is doing one of the most reprehensibly slimy accountant moves ever.  How many millions of "virtual" dollars are sitting in accounts that will never come to fruition?  Who knows?  Maybe I'll buy some Google stock and demand the answer.

All I know is I'll probably never get to $100, so my $50.78 is currently being held hostage in some weird accountant's wet-dream limbo state.

So, "Is Amazon any better?" you might ask.  Well, they used to be.  Since I signed up with them, some 18 months ago, they have actually sent me payments totaling $49.23.  Now, that's not something I can pay my mortgage with, but at least they paid me!

However, that all ended a couple of weeks ago thanks to my Governor, Jerry Brown.  He had the incredible gall to actually ask that Amazon start paying their fair share of sales taxes - you know, like what real businesses have done for like, forever.  So how did Amazon respond?  Well, like this:

For well over a decade, the Amazon Associates Program has worked with thousands of California residents. Unfortunately, a potential new law that may be signed by Governor Brown compels us to terminate this program for California-based participants. It specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers - including but not limited to those referred by California-based marketing affiliates like you - even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.

Now, I figured this was just a threat to get California to back down, you know typical bull$#!t posturing.  Except the next day I got this email:

Unfortunately, Governor Brown has signed into law the bill that we emailed you about earlier today. As a result of this, contracts with all California residents participating in the Amazon Associates Program are terminated effective today, June 29, 2011. Those California residents will no longer receive advertising fees for sales referred to Amazon.com, Endless.com, MYHABIT.COM or SmallParts.com. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned before today will be processed and paid in full in accordance with the regular payment schedule.

Wow - way to go Amazon.  You really showed Gov'ner Brown.  And you made a total dedicated convert to your anti-sales tax views by one of your hard-working associates.

Not.

Oh well, I guess those starry-eyed dreams of being able to rake in the big bucks on the web have finally been put to rest.  Now I can just continue to rant for my own amusement and sanity.

And Google and Amazon...

Oh yeah... Thanks for nothin'!

The Hubris of Apple

I woke up last week to a brand new world.  The business I had grown and nurtured for more than a decade was changed overnight.  Steve Jobs decided that I no longer mattered.

I've been editing for most of my life.  I started out on a CMX 3600, cutting videos on BetaSP and D2 tape.  Actually, strike that... I really started out splicing Super8 film in my bedroom, then moved on to VHS tape to tape assemble editing, then 16mm Steenbecks, then came the CMX 3600.  From there I jumped into the futuristic world of "non-linear" computer-based editing.  First on Avid, then to a Media 100 and finally to Apple's Final Cut Pro.

I've been cutting primarily on Final Cut for the last decade, which makes it my longest running platform so far.  Since I started off editing with film, the concepts of film editing always made the most sense to me - things like having clips in bins and sequences running from left to right, and multiple tracks stacked on each other.  These were things first introduced by Avid, and then carried on by every editing program thereafter.  My jumps from Avid to Media100 to Final Cut were never really huge ones as all had common elements that they borrowed from each other and that ultimately led back to the days of film editing.

But now, Steve Jobs has decreed that all this shall end.  He is determined to drag editors kicking and screaming into the future that he has decided is best for all of us.  With the advent of Final Cut Pro X, he has obliterated many of the useful ways that we go about our business of editing.  And he could care less how we feel about it.

This actually goes against the very reason that Final Cut was so good to begin with. After I had made the switch to Apple's editing tool around 2000, I kept encouraging others to follow - whether they were familiar with Avid, or Media100 made no difference.  The strength of Final Cut to me, was the fact that you could use the tool in many different ways.  In other words, if you liked traditional 3-point editing performed in source and record windows like an Avid, Final Cut could do that.  Or, if you preferred making edit decisions in the timeline, like a Media100, Final Cut could do that too.  If you were a keyboard guy and liked to control the software through keyboard commands - no problem.  Prefer to mouse-around and drag things - no problem there either.  In fact, for most functions, there were usually two or three ways to do the same thing.  Whenever I watched another editor use the software I always learned something new because the toolset was so rich, it seemed almost like an entirely different animal, depending on who was operating it.

Apple's approach was obvious - learn from other successful programs what works well, and instead of dictating one way to do things, offer as many as possible, ultimately allowing the editor to determine how they should work.

But Apple is a very different company today than it was back in 2000.  Back then, they were still known as Apple Computer - and they actually cared about their higher-end customer base.  The decision for Apple to enter the video editing market themselves made perfect sense.  Most editing platforms ran not only on Macs, but on suped-up high-end Mac systems with two monitors, fast drives and lots of RAM.  They needed the fastest processors and the biggest chassis to handle additional PCI cards to run everything.  This high-end market was always on the bleeding edge of technology, constantly upgrading, always searching for faster, bigger better.  Not only that, but it was a very prestigious, and sexy market - one that could drive customers to see Apple as a player in all things media-related.

So, it made perfect sense for Apple to want to play in this market not just on the hardware side, but on the software side, and use Final Cut to continue to drive hardware revenue.  They did very well in this market - expanding into DVD production, sound editing, motion graphics, color correction and bundling it all into a new product called Final Cut Studio.  They were kicking Avid's ass and climbing up the ladder of credibility - eventually edging into the ultimate territory of Avid's domain - motion picture editing.  It seemed they were about to own the whole market... and then a funny thing happened.

They no longer wanted it.  Just when it seemed Avid was dead, Apple took their foot off the pedal.  They let up.  They stopped upgrading their software.   They started doing random things like buying up Shake (a market leading software compositing tool used by folks like ILM), releasing one version and then abandoning it completely.  They stopped attending NAB (the National Association of Broadcasters convention) and then even stranger, stopped attending MacWorld.  They changed their name to just Apple.  No Computer.  A change was coming.

To put it simply, Apple is no longer a computer company.  They are a mobile device company.  They are a media-absorption company. They sell iPads, and iPhones and Apps, and Clouds and IOs.  They barely continue to upgrade their desktop Macs (the workhorse of video-editing).  The strategy of pandering to the technological vanguard of content creators no longer fits with their business model.  They don't want to sell high-end $1000 software to drive hardware sales, they want to sell a million downloads of a $2.99 app.

I get all this - I really do.  It makes perfect sense.  They no longer need me.

But did Steve really have to completely thumb his nose at the business I've built over the last ten years, using his software and his computers?

How am I supposed to tell my clients that, "I'm sorry, I can't open up that project we did last year - Final Cut Pro X can't read it."  Or, "No, I can't send an OMF file to the audio post house to work on your sound mix, Final Cut Pro X can't do that."  Or, "Gee, I'd love to be able to read in that list you generated from your rough-cut edit you did on your Avid, but Final Cut Pro X can no longer import an EDL."

Now look - I understand that it's really just version 1 of a brand new piece of software.  And I know that they'll work out some of the bugs, and add back some of the functionality.  And I know that 3rd party developers are already scrambling to full in the holes where Apple no longer cares.

But let's really call it what it is - iMovie X.  A glitzy, cool new piece of software to edit fun videos for web and social media.  It is in no way a professional tool that I can use with my existing clients, and not something I can use to edit feature films, or broadcast documentaries.

So, like a scorned lover, I must wait.  Wait and see if Steve ever decides to play with me again - to bless me with the pure light of his affections.

I'll give it a year.  I'll continue to run Final Cut Pro 7.0.3 on my existing system.  Continue to bill my clients on an edit suite that fulfills their needs and mine.  I'll check out and download Adobe and Avid's latest products and figure out which will better suite my needs.  Maybe, just maybe, Steve will come to his senses and like the New Coke fiasco, or the Apple Cube, this will all just be a blip in product development stupidity history, and some day soon, shiny new Final Cut Pro 8 will be made available.

If not, I'll soldier along just fine.  In the end, the toolset is never what matters most.  It's always been and will always be about telling a story in an effective and compelling way.

But damn Steve - did you really need to be such a dick about it?

Everything is Possible but Nothing is Real

So I was in Vegas recently, and while I was there I was stopped not once, but twice by strangers who wanted to comment on the shirt I was wearing.  I happened to be sporting my Black Country Communion t-shirt.

Who are Black Country Communion you say?

Shame... Shame on you for not knowing.  Well, actually it's not that surprising.

Black Country Communion are a super-group of sorts, fronted by Joe Bonamassa, who just happens to be the best blues-rock guitarist on the planet.  It also includes industry stalwarts Jason Bonham (yes, son of the GREAT John Bonham, Glenn Hughes (Deep Purple, Black Sabbath), and Derek Sherinian (Dream Theater).  Not that you should actually care or anything, but they happen to be making the best true rock sounds since Bad Company and Led Zeppelin.

But that's not the point.

The point is that while talking with one of the folks who felt the need to comment on my shirt (a drummer who supposedly knew Joe B. when he was just a wee lad), he made the comment, "Man, it's too bad he can't make it in the music scene today..."  I said, "What do you mean - he HAS made it."

The rules of success in the music industry have just radically changed from where they were twenty years ago or so.

Joe Bonamassa has a loyal following who buy all his records.  He tours all over the world.  He even got to play with Eric Clapton at the Royal Albert Hall. That's success in today's music biz.  Is he a household name?  No, but he's not a 15-year old pop star kid either.  The music biz is now even more divided between the 5 or 6 mega stars who are heavily marketed (Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, Justin Bieber, etc.), and everyone else.  It used to be you made money off sales of your CDs, but that's long gone.  Now the CD (er... digital download I mean) is a loss-leader just to get people excited about your live shows.  Cashflow is based mostly on ticket sales and merchandising revenue.

The time when an artist could make a living off the intellectual property of their art may be coming to an end.  And it's all your fault.


Yep, it's your dang fault for having an insatiable need to consume music and movies and not want to pay anything for them.  Once something can be digitized and transmitted as zeroes and ones on the net, it inevitably spirals down to a value of zero.  Folks just don't wanna pay if they don't have to.

And this is the sad future for filmmakers as well.


Thanks to Netflix, the assumption is that at any time I can click on a box and instantly watch great entertainment in the comfort of my home.  For free.  Or nearly free. As a consumer, this is amazing.  As a film buff I can now watch all sorts of titles I never would have been exposed to before.  I know so many more directors and their visions.  But are those filmmakers, really being compensated for all this?

Not really.

The indie film I edited and co-produced, The Commune, was offered a deal by Netflix for their Watch Instantly streaming service.  Do you know what they offered us?

$7500.

And that was before the distributor took their 30% cut.

So, let's see, our meager budget was under $100,000.  Hardly anyone got paid.  And now, Netflix wants to own it and allow anyone in the world to watch it for free in the comfort of their own home.  And for all that, we'll be compensated around $5000.

Now I'm not knocking 5 grand.  Hey, that's better than nothing.  Many filmmakers would love to be offered a Netflix deal.

But, do the math.  It's not rocket science.  There is no sustainable business model there.

Now, musicians have a way to get around this dilemma.  They no longer expect to make money off their art.  They can make money off their live performances.  And so now they are always on the road - like a hamster on a treadmill - keeping the machine running.

Live to rock and rock to live!

But filmmakers don't have this revenue stream.  We don't get paid for live performances.  Our films are our live performances.  Unless you're Kevin Smith, no one really gives a s#!+ about hearing or seeing the director - they just wanna see the movie.

So how will the indie filmmaker survive in this climate?

I don't know.  I really can't see it.


The only business model I can see working is to crowd-source the funding of your film.  Spread the risk.  Let your true fans feel like they are part of the process. Set up a kickstarter campaign and raise just enough money to hopefully cover costs.  Maybe pad it a little so you can actually pay your rent while making the film.  Then at least any scraps of revenue that are generated will be profit.

Do not go into debt and take out a mortgage on your home to make your next indie feature film kiddos.  It ain't worth it.

Welcome to the future.  Everything is possible but nothing is real.*



*(Living Colour - Type)

Another Hole in the Head

... you know, like, "San Francisco needs another film festival like it needs another hole in the head."
Except in this case, San Francisco really needs this festival, because this is the only bay area film fest that celebrates horror, sci-fi, exploitation and general wackiness.

And y'all are invited to attend two weeks of mayhem from June 3 to June 16 at the Roxie Theater in the happening Mission District, S.F.

Highlights include:


- Helldriver, by Yoshihiro Nishimura (opening night)
- The Victim, Directed by and Starring Michael Biehn (who will be at the screening!)
- Absentia, by Mike Flanagan
- Red Ice, by Ralph Hyver (San Francisco Filmmaker)
- The Bleeding House, by Philip Gelatt
- Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale, by Jalmari Helander
- Apocrypha, by Michael Fredianelli (Bay Area Filmmaker)
- I am Nancy (cool doc about actress Heather Langenkamp, "Nancy" from Nightmare on Elm Street)

AND...

 Enter the Dark!  by yours truly, which will screen twice:


Thursday, June 3 at 5:20 pm (We actually open up the festival, supporting the feature film, Haunted Changi!)

Friday, June 9 at 7:20 pm 


I will be attending both screenings, along with some of my cast and crew, so if you're in the Bay Area and want to catch some cool films, drop on by.


Tickets can be purchased here:

Exclusive Interview with Chauntal Lewis, Star of Toolbox Murders 2

You probably haven't heard of Chauntal Lewis yet.  Hopefully, that will soon change. I was lucky enough to work with her on the indie film, The Commune. She recently took some time off her busy schedule to do this interview with me for Horror Society.  Take a sec to read about her inspirational story:

The Next One...

I've been so fortunate with the success that Enter the Dark has had so far: screenings around the world, great reviews and multiple awards.  More importantly, people really seem to respond to it and have encouraged me to keep going.  And therein lies the problem.  That dreaded sophomore slump.  It's time to start writing the next one.

With Enter the Dark, my main goal was simply to finally finish something.  I've been very good at coming up with ideas in my lifetime, and horrible at actually finishing any one of them.  I purposely made this goal embarrassingly easy to accomplish - shooting it in my own house, with my friends, with gear we already owned.  No excuses.  If I couldn't complete a short film under those circumstances, I never would and I should just accept that fact.  Fortunately with the great help of my friends, we did indeed steam forward and not only finished the project, but made a pretty darn good one as well.

 

But now, things are different.  This time, there can be no excuses - no conditions.  It's not enough to say, "Hey, isn't this pretty good considering we did this with no money and it was just me and my buddies?"  No, this time it has to stand on its own.  This short film has to be good enough that it could be shown to anyone and they would assume it was a Hollywood-produced film.  The story, acting, camerawork, lighting, art direction, sound design and everything else all have to be top-notch.  It has to be seamless - no excuses.

And why is that - you may ask.  Well, it's simple - this has to be my calling card.  There's no more goofing around.  If I'm to ever make it in this industry - to actually fulfill my little ol' BA in Cinema from S.F. State University, then the time is now.  This project has to be good enough for someone to look at and say, "Wow, this guy's good - let's give him a couple million and see what he can do with an actual budget.  Let's give him a feature film to direct."

There, I said it - that's what I ultimately want to do.

So, you tell me, how can anyone actually produce good art under those pressures?  You see, I have to play a game with myself - to forget what my goals are and just concentrate on the task at hand - writing a great story.  But it has to be a story that not only speaks to me, but that enables me to showcase my talents as a writer/director.  It has to be small enough so it is do-able (considering I still will have almost no budget), but big enough to explore inventive ideas. 

In short, I need to produce a tiny, perfect gem of a story that will be the seed to my future.  No pressure there…

UGH!!!

I'm stuffing myself with movies, pouring over M.C. Escher prints and reading Borges' Labyrinths to hopefully have all this wash over me so that some of its brilliance may somehow seep into my pores.  But I know I need to find my own true voice - I cannot allow myself to try to write to please others.  Only by making the story personal will it connect with others on a deeper level.  The things that work in Enter the Dark work because they feel authentic.  I must focus on that.

The good news is I think I've found the story - the architecture around which I may be able to create my film.  I still need to flesh out the details, breathe life into the characters, find the heart - but I think I've found the vessel.  Now, if I can just make the damned thing float!

Insidious - An Empty Shell of a Movie

I was worried.

You see - with all the buzz surrounding the new film by James Wan (Saw), I thought maybe someone had made the new classic haunted house/demonic possession movie before I could.

Turns out I needn't have worried.

Insidious is an empty shell of a movie, adrift in a nether nether land, with other nasty, scary movies forcing their way into it's lifeless corpse. Hey... that also happens to be the film's premise - what a coincidence!

It has its moments of great jump-scares, but never really develops the undercurrent of dread necessary to make a movie like this really get under your skin.

And why is that?

Well, it's simple.  It seems like James Wan has made a scary movie about other scary movies - kinda like Scream, but without all the fun.  Starting with the blood red embossed lettering of the title (a la Suspiria), Insidious follows the predictable path of The Exorcist, Poltergeist, The Entity (nice casting of Barbara Hershey by the way) and eventually all the way to Carnival of Souls (stumbling white-faced ghoulies anyone?) and back to Suspiria (bright red lighting) once again.

Wan even throws in a sketch of his Saw puppet on the blackboard behind one of the characters just in case we're not getting the hint- THIS IS A MOVIE ABOUT MOVIES!

Now, the whole thing actually almost works because he's borrowing from some really great films, so moments of the film hold your attention, draw you in and elicit some real nice scares, but you find yourself counting the references (a drinking game for sure) more than actually caring about any of the characters.

I did however, like his attempt to stay away from digital effects and go with mostly old-school costume, makeup and lighting, but while this works fine in the buildup phase of the movie it kinda left me wanting more when we enter the third act and we're supposed to accept the fact that this amazing, limitless astral-projecting reality we're entering is just a dark old house with red lights and a dude who look like Tim Curry.

I'm starting to understand why certain horror movies work for me and some don't.  This quote from William Friedkin sums it up nicely:

“The only way I could have made ‘The Exorcist’ the way I did, is if I believed it.  If you look at the film, it’s a film made by people who believe this – we’re not kidding.  The guy who wrote it and the guy who directed it, accept demonic possession and exorcism as a possibility.”
 
This is exactly why Insidious only works on a superficial level.  These dudes don't believe any of it, and they never expect the audience will either.  Everything is done with a wink and a nod.  The only things that ever terrified James Wan as a kid were obviously other horror movies. If you were ever a kid with night terrors, you would never present them like they are in this film - trust me, I should know.

Real horror comes from tapping those deep lurking fears within us and expressing them for others to see.  Not because it seems like a fun thing to do, or to make the next hit movie, but because you have to.

Because you are compelled.

Wait for my next movie... then you'll see what I'm talking about.