Whitestone Motion Pictures

Be sure to join in the feedback. We want to hear from you guys!

So, is the goal to just get the attention of the eyeballs or the gatekeepers? In reality, only a small margin of the public is savvy to the idea of watching a movie without all of the glamour that comes with the distribution.

I’d say the trick is to play the game, grab the attention, THEN snatch the eyeballs (i.e. Radiohead, NIN, etc.).

I like your thinking, though because without that thinking, I don’t think any of your success would be possible (present AND future).

Social networking is word of mouth of steroids. While traditional channels can remain effective (a good commercial placed properly in a theatre or on tv can prompt wom), we’re always more likely to be moved to action by a recommendation from a friend or colleague. I think people are also more likely to view a clip sent via YouTube that was not produced by a corporation. So having a person place a great clip on YouTube and seed it out to their friends is going to be a more efficient way to market. Take that a step further, and offer the full movie or music and if we like, we’ll go there. I know that I rarely watch mainstream TV shows on TV because it’s more convenient to go to a website and download them at my convenience, I don’t have to deal with Tivo and a television, I don’t have to be home to view them. Regarding film, I’ve seen some really great work because the barriers to entry are low on the web, so talented creators can get exposure. And when I find something, I pass it along. The upshot, the artist has control rather than the distribution. As consumers, we get to filter through a wider variety of choices. It’s a win-win.

[...] Is social networking the new distribution? A look at how social media is transforming ordinary media. (tags: media films movies hollywood distribution television socialmedia socialnetworking twitter entertainment) [...]

I think there is a lot in your post, but not sure what the point of the argument is saying. When it comes to television, it is definitely large corporation groups which own those major media outlets. The main concern with present day outlets is that we don’t have a two way conversation for news. American citizens must trust the news/entertainment sources for the “truth” about what is happening without the ability to comment. Of course the majority of what is reported has nothing to do with impacting the future of the country. How does the DNA test of Ramsey’s parents being innocent effect whats actually going on in the nation? Why do I care about Britney Spears and K fed, or OJ and his latest trouble? They’re selling advertising and we’re buying it. I would say that in today’s world, BLOG’s may be a better source for finding news… while finding credible sources may prove to be somewhat difficult. However even today blogs that attract a lot of hits are being bought by interests groups, so cometh the fall. Wiki’s like Wikipedia would be great if they existed in the form of media. Maybe Current TV is the only existing form of news/web/tv in which a 2 way conversation can exist. Thanks Al Gore. (to my limited knowledge this is the only channel that allows viewer created content, I haven’t read on this subject)
Lets hop over to entertainment. It’s the same story here. You Tube may have been a creation of a nerdy dude or two, but those guys have been bought up by the distributor known as “Google Inc.” for over a Billion dollars in stocks. I capitalize that much money. While I think google is cool… it also knows more about me as an individual than any film distributor does at the present moment. It knows what sites I like to visit. It knows what documents my company has stored in google docs, it knows what were editing across the country, it knows what I like to eat, drink, and wear. It knows what it can sell me. It also knows it can sell that information if it wants too. The thing about You Tube is that it makes money. As does all other facets of popular web distribution. In fact everyone seems to make money except for the artist that attracted the audience (unless the artist is the web designer). Take Myspace. I don’t know if they have changed this because I am not a myspace fan. But the fact they retain the copyrights of posted material in their legal agreement detoured me from posting trailers for films there. Screw that. You have to read the legal agreements these present day monsters of advertising dollars are wanting us to sign. Same thing for facebook and the other present day sites you asked us to ignore in you’re posting. Forgive me for focusing on them in this argument. I would argue that the present day giants of distribution will close the gap in the future. Right now how much money is you’re company paid for posting on websites? Why would we post videos on You Tube that could attract 2 billion hits without forcing them to send us a paycheck? We artists are generating alot more than advertising for our films, we are selling google the right to sign on million dollar advertising deals.
The nature of the beast is still alive. If I create a website and I can prove it gets alot of hits, I’m going to sell that site. The way I see it is that if my film helped that sell, I should be getting a cut. Which right now… I don’t think is happening. Maybe I’m wrong, but these mega sites should be working in the same way Sermon Spice was set up. Let me post stuff, they take a cut, and I’ll take mine. That would be present day distribution. The distribution system is growing and changing it isn’t an old beast. Video release is only 30 years old. Still that has been the latest factor in distribution deals. I would bet that the same technology that would allow artists to showcase their work will also allow the mega-distributors to reach the marketplace faster and quicker. Once DVD’s and Blue Ray finish their run and everyone owns a box with a connection to every studio film ever made at the touch of a button, (the future of On Demand) then the production costs will disappear or at least drop significantly enough to put the big dogs back on top. Studios have been in the biz for over a hundred years and they make money because of carefully organized formulas, and I don’t think thats a necessarily bad thing. There is such a thing as story structure, and we all like 3 act structures. We measure what we like and dislike almost inherently by that code. The difference between amateurs and professionals is that the professionals know what the code is and how to use it. One thing that is very good for professional independents is that the distributors pay full dollar for great independent films. It does not take anything but a good education to sell a film to a distribution company. If that is the case why fight the system and rely on the future of the internet which is as easily as corruptible as the mass market media venues? I would argue that the best way to beat the system is to play by the rules and learn how to produce. As for directors, I think they have a better shot of being hired when their material gets into the hands of a good producer. The internet may be the proper place to prove yourself worthy of a mass market release. Or as someone else commented “to get the eyeballs of the gatekeepers.” When a producer knows what you are capable of he will call you when he knows he can sell you to someone else. When a writer wants to sell a story he has to talk to a producer. However, if you are a company that creates feature content… you can sell that pretty easily. But you cannot do it alone. The production company and the distribution company must form a marriage with each film it creates. Remember that the production company is selling the distribution rights of the LLC in which they formed for their film. Not just a piece of art. Art has nothing to do with the nature of the filmmaking business. A billion jillion people can see you’re video on whatever site you choose to put it on. Whoever owns that website will be the new distributor for sure; that I agree with. However, that isn’t going to put the present day boys out of business. They will adapt, change, and buy those sites that prove to be profitable. It will be the same old emperor in a new set of clothes. The artist will still get screwed unless he has a good producer that knows something about the filmmaking business or “working in the pictures.” However, let me add that short films have never had a mainstream marketplace. Shorts are an artistic niche as well as experimental films. The internet has allowed us to access these for the first time and that is exciting. Marketing is a completely different monster. The marketing industry is all demographics studies and carefully planed campaigns. Its rare we will see any creative innovations other than eye candy technology there. Short filmmakers may get hired faster for commercials than features, but it is more likely you will be copied rather than hired.

In my experience the future should not be trusted when it comes to being in the favor of the artists. I don’t see anything other than the illusion of progress. Which is exactly what the big guys want us to believe so they can peek at our ideas, and use them to sell pop up ads.

Lets enjoy the short window of freedom, and use the grassroots methods to rally people around our work. That is important… it is important to me that I send a clear message within each film I produce. That is my goal in the market. Unless you really just want to see you’re film in theaters, you can create buzz around the planet. I suppose this is a major reason the Zeitgeist documentary is so popular… but how do they make money? How do they eat? I’m curious to find that out. Right now if you want to make a buck, forget grassroots, learn the business and play the game. The market place is that wonderful and special place where the masses go to see material. What history has taught us is that the masses like to go to one or two sources simply not to confuse themselves. This is why millions choose You Tube over the countless other sources for viewing material. That I think is a safe bet of what the future looks like. One or two, maybe 5 or 6, major players. So, like I said before… I think the beast will change to utilize emerging technologies and cover the market. Unless you become a distributor, you will always have to work through someone else. The goal of a good distributor is to place your films in the right theaters and the right stores for you’re demographic and audience. The truth is that distributors are the reason filmmakers eat right now. And thats a good thing. Gaining film investments to create my art would be impossible without being able to sell the film to a distribution company. How is a million hits going to help me raise budgets if I can’t show a profit? If I can prove a profit through the internet, I would be all for changing with this future… but I think the only way I am going to get paid is if the major players (google or otherwise) start buying films for online release.