I’m Now Blogging

What a Night

Sat, 16 May 2009 21:25:28 -0700

I had quite an evening.

I had a kind of long day at work, and was eager to get home and go to sleep, just to do it again tomorrow.

But alas, the universe conspired against me.

First, there was some kind of craziness on La Brea, with it being closed from Melrose to Target for some reason involving a lot of police. First time I’ve ever seen Pink’s without a line after 6 A.M., especially weird on a Saturday night. I thought that this would be my last interaction with the police this evening.

I was wrong.

When I pulled up at home, my convertible was, well, converted. With the top down I heard my neighbor's house alarm going off.

As I got out of the car, a woman called out.

“Excuse me?”

I turned. A stunning brunette is standing in front of my neighbor’s house wave to me. A pretty woman. Damn it. One of my many, many weaknesses.

“Can you help me? My friends alarm is going off.”

“I’m not sure what I can do about it...”

“No, I can’t get a hold of her on the phone. Can you walk with me in the back? You’re a big guy, I’ll feel safe.”

In my mind I’m figuring I’m going to get killed just for a pretty face I’ve never met before. But of course I go.

We walk to the back. It’s as black as the deepest ocean. I kid you not, a cat jumped out, scaring us both to death.

She pounds on the windows and doors, calling for her friend.

Nothing.

She starts filling me in, I’m only half listening, trying to make sure I don’t get deadified.

Suddenly a couple words register- “ugly breakup” and “restraining order”.

I turn to her and ask - “You’re saying your friend, who’s car is parked out front, whose alarm is going off, and isn’t answering her door or always-on Crackberry just had an ugly break up with her boyfriend, and now has a restraining order against him?”

“Yes”

I immediately dial 911, grabbed her wrist and pulled her out front.

“What are you doing?”

“Calling the police - this just turned into a bad episode of CSI.”

Yes, that’s what I said. When I panic, I talk like a i am in a badly written episode of CSI.

She starts to panic a little, I assure her it’s not necessarily bad, but it’s better to get the professionals involved now. Whatever she’s imagining is worse than what happened.

We can hear my neighbor’s puppy whimpering in the house. This sets the girl off again.

Within about two minutes the West Hollywood Sheriff’s Department shows up, three cruisers, five cops. West Hollywood has a kick ass police department.

Ms. Panic fills in the cops. They start to check out the premises. I note, but don’t mention, they unbuckle their holsters and walk around back hands on guns.

This just got a little too real for me. All I did is get home from work, now there are cops ready for a shootout across the street from my house.

Finding nothing, they finally get a hold of one of the other neighbors who report she went out that evening @ 7:30 with “some guy”.

A date. She went on a date, didn’t tell her friend, and now I’m stuck filling out paperwork.

I realize this story just fizzles out. But for an hour tonight, my life was kinda exciting.

iPhone 3.0, Apple TV and How Apple Can Change Everything

Sun, 3 May 2009 12:53:11 -0700

I made a comment on my Twitter feed a few days ago :

The fact that Apple has mad micro payments available via iApps but NOT in iTunes for podcasts is bullshit.

First, yes - there is a typo. Sorry. But beyond that, it’s a good concept. But in thinking about it, I got a better one.

Apple needs to build an App Store for the AppleTV.

And if you let appmakers charge micropayments? This would change EVERYTHING.

The thing content developers - musicians, filmmakers, gamemakers, etc - want is access to consumers. Give them the ability to not just give their content away, but let them monetize it if they so wish.

For example, my friend Kenn Bell has an awesome show with “The Dog Files” . Each episode is under ten minutes or so, and is well produced, full of good information and I would pay for it if I had to. It’s short content - so let’s say - $0.50. Two bits. NOTHING. I don’t even think about spending that. You may think, okay, but how can Kenn make money on $0.50? He can’t. But if another 20,000 - that’s a good number for a halfway successful podcast -if 20,000 people all pay that, it’s suddenly $10,000 and episode. $7,000 after Apple takes it’s assumed 30% rake, ala the AppStore. That’s great money. Even if he puts out one episode a month, boom - $84,000 in income, for doing what he does for free. Yes, he would likely lose some viewers who think all content ever created should be available for free online, but he would gain a lot more by being on people’s TV.

Not their iPod. Not their computer. Their TV. I think tech people underestimate how much value that is to the average consumer. People are comfortable with their TV. It’s what they are used to. It’s how they interact with media in their home. The way to move content into the online space is not to make people watch on their computers - it’s to take away the computer part.

But this wouldn’t just benefit us independent media people. No. The REAL beneficiaries would be the media conglomerates. How? Imagine if HBO released an app that for $9.99 a month gave you constant access to an HBO stream. What about a $2.99 a month HuluHD app?

What, Hulu is an advertising supported content provider? Wow, I’m sure THEY don’t want exact information on who watches what shows. They wouldn’t want to collect that demographic information and use it to target advertis- oh, wait. Yes. Yes they would like that. I’m sure they wouldn’t be willing to give up their iFee for that info - oh, wait - they would? Oh. Okay. Oh, and because you have to have a valid credit card to get the app through the iTunes store, you can’t lie about who you are, like you can online? That will really make them angry.

But it goes beyond even your traditional media outlets. Imagine being able to subscribe to get every single Red Sox game, regardless of media blackouts. Or Yankees games, if you are evil. Niche sports would be able to be seen by those that want them. Fan of Rugby? Pay $59.99 and all the games are yours.

And it’s not just Media Apps. How about a weather app? Or a stock ticker app that adds a stock scroll to the bottom of the screen as you watch the Daily Show? A Twitter App that does the same?

And of course, the big one. Games. Games are one of the biggest sellers, and therefore earners on the iPhone. Put em on your TV. Enable people to use that USB port to plug in a controller. Heck, you can even turn the iPhone into a controller with it’s OWN app - Apple did that with the Remote app.

Apple. Listen. You have something in your hands that can change EVERYTHING. But, you have to stop treating it like Cousin Oliver and start taking it seriously.

Losing the Shirt Off Your Back

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:23:50 -0800

Let’s talk about show business for a second. Show. Business. It’s about entertainment. It’s about commerce. Both can and do co-exist.

I want to talk about business for a sec. There are many, many levels of commerce. Let’s take a simple item - tshirts, and examine them for a moment.

First, we will look at the world’s largest retailer - Walmart. They are evil, true. But apparently you can get a 5 pack of Hane’s t-shirts for $9.97, roughly $2 a shirt. Likely made by prison labor in a developing country, but you can’t beat the price.

Next, we’ll take a look at my t-shirt of choice, American Apparel. I appreciate the fact their shirts are made here in the US and their workers are paid a fair wage. And it is reflected in their price - $91 for 7, roughly $13 a shirt. More expensive, but their fit, quality and social justice stance makes it worth it. And anyone who has seen their ads, realizes they need money to start buying their models a sammich or two.

Then, of course you have the high-end, designer t-shirts. For instance, Armani offers a simple t-shirt for $64. That is for one shirt. Maybe the offer a three pack, but the loan application was too much of a hassle.

The price differences are interesting, because all three items are essentially the same thing - cotton shirts. What separates them are the quality of materials, the cost of labor and economies of scale.

A Hane’s t-shirt from Walmart is not the best quality cotton, the material is thinner, the styling is such that construction is faster and easier, and they sell millions, allowing them to sell for a very low price. The American Apparel shirts are made from a soft jersey, have a unique fit, and sell in the hundreds of thousands. The Armani shirt is interwoven with the dreams of orphans and sewn together with a needle carved from the horn of the last unicorn. At least that is my assumption, based on it’s cost.

What does any of this have to do with media? Simple. Network television is Hane’s. They make a lot of media, they have perfected how to do so cheaply and efficiently. And by and large, it is perfectly suitable. Anyone with an antenna can get this stuff, if they want it.

But sometimes, people want something that fits them better. Maybe made a little better. And they are willing to pay more for it. In the world of media, this would be your cable, especially premium channels, like HBO or Showtime.

And that Armani tshirt? That is your big feature films. For most people, going out to the movies is a special thing. They choose carefully where they spend their money. For a lot of films, they will wait till they hit DVD, or HBO, or even broadcast TV.

At each level, there is a cost involved, and that cost has to be paid, and hopefully enough profit to fund more.

Now then, we come to so called “new media”, aka internet distributed media. Right now, it can be segmented into three categories: repurposed “old” media, original produced content, and skateboarding dogs.

Repurposed media is like that found on Hulu and in the iTunes store. Stuff that was made for TV or the theater and sold online. This is much like the outlet stores. They have already made their money, now they just try to unload their inventory and make as much as they can before no one cares anymore.

Skateboarding dogs is that category which provides YouTube with 99% of it’s content. Skateboarding dogs, singing into web cams, and the ever popular people getting hit in the nuts are all, lets face it, just an episode of America’s Home Video’s without someone editing out the worthless stuff. There is no intent to make money, merely a hope that someone will notice them or will find their friend getting hit in the nuts as funny as they did ( we do ).

Which brings us to original produced content. This is a very select group. It is made up of that content which is produced exclusively for the net, and made intentionally for that purpose. Many podcasts fit this category, though some are repurposed content such as “This American Life”. We also have original webisodes, like those for Heroes and 24, and original content like Two Guys Drinking in a Bar or The Dog Files. Those second two are interesting, because they have an analogy in clothing as well.

I met my friend Lisa while working in the video game industry. She worked for a different company as a texture artist, and was quite good at it. We would hang out on Friday nights playing cards, but the whole time, she would be knitting. It’s how she relaxed. One week, she brought me a scarf she made. It was easily the nicest scarf I had ever had. Soft, silky and warm. It was also obviously crafted with care and craft. When it got to the holidays, I went home, and my mom really liked my scarf, asked where I got it. When i got back to San Fran, I asked Lisa to make my mom a scarf. Without even thinking, I said “I’d pay you for it!” Lisa made the scarf, and took my money. It wasn’t the first time someone had asked her, and it was worth the $40 when my mom got the scarf and called me up all cry-ey. Now, Lisa makes a living only making scarves, baby booties and the like. She’s doing what she loves, and her business grew out of a hobby. But if one day, she had quit her job to say “I’m going to make a living knitting!” We would have thought she were nuts and she likely would have not been able to grow her business fast enough to be sustainable.

This is the same as independent new media production. If you do it because you love it, great. But don’t do it to make money. Because you may never. Do it as a labor of love, but don’t quit your day job.

On the flip side, it’s not all about making money. If you are producing content, and enjoy the actual creation, that is fine too. My friend Craig loves flying. He bought a custom acrobatic plane, buys aviation fuel, paid for pilot lessons a while back. He will never make money flying and, in fact, spends quite a bit doing it. But it’s not LOST money. He is simply paying the cost of doing what he loves. So if you aren’t making money making content, but you love it, are you really losing money?

It is Possible to be Too Suite

Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:34:10 -0800

I just upgraded to Final Cut Studio 2.

I know, welcome to 2007, right? Hey, I’ve been busy. And I was getting by on FCP4 and the couple million dollars in Avid equipment I have access to.

But I finally bit the bullet and upgraded at home. I’m very glad I did. It is faster, seems more stable, and has some features I really, really like.

But it misses the mark in a couple ways. Ways I think could be improved. At the root of all these is a philosophical outlook on the suite of tools.

Apple seems to view FCS2 as a bunch of applications centered around video production, and these applications all play well with each other. Very egalitarian. However, it’s stupid. No one is buying a seat of Final Cut Studio 2 just to use Soundtrack Pro or DVD Studio. Both are great tools, true. But if you are a sound professional, you are likely using Pro Tools. If you are a DVD producer you are likely using... whatever it is they use. People use Soundtrack and it’s brothers because they use Final Cut. Final Cut is not just one of a suite of programs. It is not even first among equals. Final Cut is the big dog, and all others should submit to it’s dominance.

Here are just a few simple suggestions:

Right now, if I want to add a title slate, I need to launch motion, create a project, save it, drag it into FCP and add it to the timeline. Why cant I just right click on a bin and say “create MOTN file”, drag it into the timeline and be done. I realize it’s not much difference, but it’s fast, and keeps me in the “flow” - and working productively is all about flow.

I have Motion. It came in the box. I know this. You know this. It’s not like I’m asking you to create a AEP file - though that’d be AWESOME. Create a MOTN file that is a simple text object, and let me either hand it off to someone or do it myself later. Sure, I could have a presaved file, but it’s not the right length, it doesn’t say the right thing, etc. I have to launch Motion. LET ME STAY IN FINAL CUT!

Similar is Soundtrack. I like Soundtrack. I actually LIKE Soundtrack. But working with it is a pain sometimes. I simply don’t understand why there cannot be a “Foley” palette in Final Cut that lets me have access to all the sound effects that ship with Soundtrack. If I have an edit of say, a fight and I’ve temped in audio of a bunch of punches, I can do it either by bringing in all the audio into a bin in FCP, with non of the handy sorting, searching and tagging that exists in Soundtrack, or I can go into soundtrack, and have to constantly export and conform with every video edit change.

Also, seeing as temp music is insanely useful, let me just grab AACs and MP3s from my iTunes library. I’m not saying make it iMovie, but let me read any and all media Quicktime can.

Overall, I’m digging the party, even if I arrived fashionably late. But I hope at NAB2009 we see the Apple recognizes that I don’t want Final Cut Studio. I want editing, with benefits.

Project: November

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:51:24 -0800

What is Project: November?

Technically, P:N is a short film I’m doing for exhibition next year.

What it really is, is an accident of timing and relationships I have formed over the years coalescing into having access to things usually costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for free.

I have been given access to a full motion capture volume and the staff to run it, for a full day. This isn’t some rinky dink six camera setup in someone’s conference room, either. This is the main stage at Giant Studios. My shoot actually got bumped up because Steven Spielberg is shooting on it right after me.

My fight scene is being co choreographed with Garrett Warren, the stunt co-ordinator on Crank, Transformers and Avatar, among others. He is a protege of Jackie Chan, and is both the toughest S.O.B. I’ve ever met ( he has a fake eye because someone shot him in the face ) and the most gentle, caring guy as well.

I have stunt people and actors from well known movies like Pirates of the Caribbean and The Island volunteering their services.

All this came together kind of suddenly as I was playing around with the idea of doing a big action piece for my directing reel. Right now, due to my nature as a small budget independent filmmaker, my reel is mainly mopey people sitting around discussing life and sandwiches. Because of my visual effects background, I was told my best chance to get a major film is to go after the $130 million dollar movie, not the $30 million one. I was going to shoot an all live action piece, but well - I subscribe to the Church of Stu as much as anyone and I think he would agree, if you are offered the big toys, go play with em.

So I started moving forward on my plans to make this film. I wrote the story, came up with the visual ideas for it and then something strange happened. The more I talked to people about it, the more they wanted to work on it. So I am OFFICIALLY opening this up as a community project. Anyone who wants to contribute, can, if there is a role you can and want to fill.

There is no pay involved. The money that IS going into this is going towards things like food for the shoot, insurance, renderfarm rental, foley and orchestration and recording - that kind of thing.

What people will get out of it is a ( hopefully ) kick ass piece that will be on the cutting edge of CG technology. Something people can proudly point to and say “I helped make that.” One that will be shown at Siggraph all over the place. In 2K, in stereo ( the eyball kind. Sound will be 5.1 ).

Oh, did I not mention that Autodesk will be using the film as a showcase piece at Siggraph? I really should have, because they are.

So there it is. That’s Project: November. Soon I’ll be putting up a dedicated blog that’ll be posting pictures, videos, what have you as I can.

If you are interested in collaborating with me on this, let me know here.

The Doctor is In

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:47:59 -0700

Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along-Blog. You’ve heard of it? Chances are, you have. It is, without a doubt, the first blockbuster success for scripted content on the web.

Well, except lonelyGirl15. But people claimed they didn’t know that was scripted when they first started to watch. Oh, and Ask-A-Ninja. And RocketBoom. And - okay, so it’s not the first.

But it is the first with mainstream Hollywood stars, both in front of and behind the cameras. And that has to count for something, doesn’t it?

It certainly gave us a level of quality I don’t think a lot of people are used to seeing in made-for-online material. But the surprising thing to me is how far from broadcast quality it is. What does not surprise me is the fact that no one cares. They are entertained and that is enough.

So creatively, that means it was a success. What a lot of people seem to care about is whether Dr. Horrible was a success financially. In this rather self-important bloated post, I’m going to discuss my opinions on what they did right, what they did wrong ( or rather DIDN’T DO at all ), and what this means going forward for online media.

So let’s break it down, shall we?

What They Did Right

It’s written by Joss Whedon. The man is simply one of the best writers working in the medium of screenwriting today. But more than that – Whedon is probably the screenwriter most beloved by the “new media” crowd today. His mixture of sarcasm, intelligent and witty wordplay, and love of genre material appeals to a group of people that were beat up a lot in junior high for being sarcastic, intelligent witty people who love genre material. Joss Whedon and the internet are chocolate and peanut butter. Vodka and tonic. Joanie and Chachi. Meant for each other.

Also interesting is how Whedon used the less restrictive internet for jokes he could never do on the air – “The hammer is my penis” being the most obvious, but Captain Hammer also flips the bird in Act 3.

It’s a musical. Being a musical might seem to be a negative – musicals have a very specific fanbase. But it sets it apart from everything else and the two fanbases sort of overlap. It’s also a brilliant move in terms of recouping their money. They instantly created a secondary revenue stream. I purchased the “Once More With Feeling” soundtrack, and will also purchase this one. That’s likely another $10 in their pocket from me. I don’t know how much it’ll be, I’m guessing.

They got real actors. Before I get a bunch of angry emails and tweets – I’m not saying you have to be a successful Hollywood actor to be a “real” actor. But most people who are successful in Hollywood as an actor actually have some talent. I’m sure more than a few people watched for the novelty of seeing Doogie Howser sing. But that’s missing the point. Neil Patrick Harris is an amazing actor. I almost feel bad that he is best known for Doogie Howser, when his work as Barney on “How I Met Your Mother” is often the best part of the show, and his extended cameos in the “Harold and Kumar” movies are genius.

Take another look at Dr. Horrible. Watch what NPH does with his eyes. Watch his nervous blinks whenever his insecurity comes to mind. There is amazing subtly to his looks, his gestures, especially during the songs. Which, as a note, he nails. This is what a good actor does and why they are worth the money.

Felicia Day is also an attraction. And I don’t just mean because she is an extremely attractive young lady. I don’t just mean because she’s a talented actress. The fact is Felicia Day is a very well known geek and new media star in her own right. Between her podcast show “The Guild” and her frequent blog postings about D&D and WoW, she has established street cred as a nerd. The casting of Day as Penny also makes it seem less like Whedon is muscling in on New Media and more like he wants to simply join the party. ( author note of full disclosure: Felicia Day and I both were members of ACME Comedy Theater and know each other tangentially. I don’t know if she is still an active member, but I am no longer there. )

Nathan Fillion is Nathan Fillion, and as such, awesome.

They paid attention to EVERYTHING-

Locations were varied and real. They shot on the Universal Lot’s NY street set before it burned down. They shot in a weird house with metal walls that likely only a location scout would have known about. They shot in a real laundry mat, not the laundry room of someone’s house.

Costumes were actually thought about. I don’t just mean the “super” costumes – though I actually thought Captain Hammer’s “costume” was quite weak – I mean everyone’s. Notice how Dr. Horrible’s secret identity of Billy has a definite and specific “look” – layered sweats and hoodies and long sleeve t-shirts. In Act 2, Penny is actually wearing an outfit that echoes Snow White.

Lighting. There actually was some. This is a big step up from most web productions.

There were visual effects, and the entire thing went through a digital intermediate. This is actually the thing that is least impressive, after shorts like “Ryan vs Dorkman” and other fan films, effects like those seen in “Dr. Horrible” are nice, but do not really set it apart by themselves. Zoic did a nice job, but nothing that couldn’t be done by a skilled filmmaker and a copy of After Effects.

Credits were handled PERFECTLY. Six seconds at the beginning – title, the three stars. It wasn’t until the last episode that there was a minute of full credits. I realize this is antithetical to what people are after on the web – credit and notoriety. But the bandwidth saved by not downloading the same minute of credits over and over was likely significant – essentially every 15 downloads with credits equals 16 without. Something to think about when you are budgeting bandwidth costs.

The last, and most important, thing they did is they made Dr. Horrible an event. By making it available for free only for a week, and by releasing each episode at a specific predetermined time, they made it something people looked forward to, and almost guaranteed that the entire blogosphere would be talking about it in a given window. They even managed to crash their servers, an event that was of note in and of itself. And now, if you keep hearing about the show and want to see it, you gotta cough up some dough – rewarding those who were in the know early, and making people want to be in the know for future events.

What They Didn’t Bother With

I intentionally didn’t call this “what they did wrong” because I don’t think anything they did was “wrong”. They simply made certain choices that I think would have been handled differently had this been made for broadcast television. Some of this might seem very nitpicky and people may wonder how in the heck I noticed any of it, but realize that as a director and filmmaker myself, it’s my job to notice these things. These are only what I noticed on first viewing. There may be more. I don’t fault them for ANY of these – I’m simply pointing them out to draw the distinctions between this and broadcast productions.

The first thing I noticed was in Act 1, where Dr. Horrible is doing his video blog. You should be paying attention to NPH’s performance. And I was. But I also noticed the hum of traffic noise outside. On a real set, more would have been done to eliminate BG noise.

Also in Act 1, when Nathan Fillion is on top of the van, especially while crouching, you can see the safety cable. I’m all for his safety, of course, but this would have been painted out on a broadcast budget, or another take would have been done.

In Act 2, there is a moment where Billy hands Penny some frozen yogurt. Felicia holds her hand out for a spoon as NPH fishes for it in the bag. My guess is this was either take one or take twelve. Meaning that they had either discussed what was going to happen and got it close enough on take one, or that they had done that part right in the first eleven takes, and the performance was best for this take, so they just moved on. A similar moment happens in Act 1 during the dancing, a hand grab is missed. For broadcast or feature work, you will often just keep going until everything goes perfect. In all likelihood, the production had a limited amount of time at the laundry mat, and it is more important to get all you need, then to get half of it perfect. This leads me to the last thing I noticed in Act 2. In the last song, as NPH exits the store, his line makes reference to “the sun is high”. Only problem is that it is quite obviously dusk. The sky is a deep blue grey, houses and stores are lit up in the background, and the principles are lit rather harshly by what looks like a strong kino. Does it matter? Not really. Get the shot, go home. But that shot would have gotten a reshoot had this been Buffy.

Act 3 is the one I have the most problems with, in terms of cutting corners. That’s a rather sad looking press conference. And what was up with the white board in the background? On TV, you would never have had a spotlight in lens like you see during Dr. Horrible’s song. But it has some nice effects, a live horse, and some killer costumes for The Evil League of Evil – Dead Bowie being my favorite.

So, am I a nitpicky dork for noticing that stuff? Well, yes. But here’s the thing – those “problems” don’t matter. The show was just as enjoyable with those “mistakes” in as they would have been without. This brings me to a thesis of mine – the production budget valley.

Joss Whedon has stated that the production cost was “low to mid six figures”. My guess based on that is $300,000. That may seem like a lot. But Dr. Horrible is 42 minutes long ( the same as a broadcast hour. Hmmmm... ) That would give it a cost per finished minute of $7150. Kent Nichols of “Ask-A-Ninja” Has stated that each episode costs around $7000. Those average around two minutes or so, giving it a cost of approximately $3500 a finished minute, roughly half.

Before continuing, let me explain my production budget valley concept. At a certain point, and that point comes very quickly, you stop getting much benefit from throwing money at a problem, until you reach the next anchor point, or if you have an effects heavy show. If they had spent $600,000 on Dr. Horrible, it would not have looked twice as good. But it would have been riskier and in the end, less financially rewarding. It would not have gained them $300,000 worth of viewers. But if they had put $1,000,000 you would have really started seeing it on screen, but I doubt you would have gained enough viewers to make it worthwhile at that price. But if a show like Battlestar Galactica tried to do an episode for $300,000 vs $1,000, 000 you would really see it on screen. Simple business question- What’s the cost, what’s the benefit? Just keep asking that of every penny spent. Every penny not spent is a penny that you don’t have to earn back.

Getting back to the main concept - for twice the cost as a guy sitting in front of a greenscreen, we get an elaborate musical black comedy. This is not to denigrate the Ninja in any way. I would never do that, if simply because the Ninja could be anywhere and I don’t want him to look forward to killing me soon, or at all. Rather, it is to point out that you can get an amazing piece of work that, to many viewers, looks as good as broadcast television for roughly twice the cost of Ask-A-Ninja per finished minute.

But it didn’t really. Whedon has stated that he relied on favors and deferred payments based on the success of the show. And I would say betting an “unpaid” week of work against the possible success of a Joss Whedon project is a safe bet.

Let me make a couple assumptions here. I’m basing these numbers on guesses, on some known facts, and personal observation.

Some Facts:

drhorrible.com crashed under the weight of roughly 1000 requests per second when Act 1 went live.

Apple keeps 10% of the cost of a purchase, the rest to the publisher, in this case also the creator.

There will be both a DVD and soundtrack release.

Guesses:

I’m going to guess that there were probably 1 – 1.5 million viewers of the show. This is just a guess based on multiple sources that have given this range. I think it’s probably lowball, but lets play it safe. Of that 1m - 1.5m, and I’m going to be generous, I’m guessing 35% purchased the show through iTunes. So, that means 350,000 to 525,000 paying viewers. I will use an average of 400,000 iTunes viewers for my calculations. I could be completely of my rocker. As I said, I’m just guessing. But Dr. Horrible did fill up a 3000 seat hall at Comic-Con, and I would guess less than 1/2% of Whedon fans made it to the con. And I think a lot of people bought it in iTunes just to support the effort after viewing it for free via Hulu. I alone have purchased it three times, once for me, and twice as gifts.

400,000 viewers at $4 is $1,600,000. I realize it was really $3.99, but average in all the people who bought each episode individually ( which you must do as a gift ) and it all evens out, OK math nerds? Once Apple takes their cut, you got just over $1.4m. Not bad. Take out the production costs, and you have approximately $1m. Split that amongst the creators, and your actors are probably taking home $80,000 - $120,000. Not a bad haul for a week of shooting and a couple weeks of rehearsal.

You also can plus that revenue with DVD and soundtrack sales. I’m going to say 25% of viewers will buy the soundtrack, once again using the $10 cost, and 15% will buy the DVD because of the added content and quality. I’m going to use total viewers. Some will want the DVD that didn’t buy from iTunes because they didn’t want to buy it twice. Some will want the soundtrack that didn’t buy the show. And some will buy everything that says “Joss Whedon” on it, so they will buy it a second time. We’ll guess they clear $9 on the soundtrack, and $12 on the DVD. That means $4,050,000 to $6,075,000 in additional revenues. A million here, a million there and suddenly we’re talking about real money. And all to the creators.

So – was Dr. Horrible a success? I would say absolutely – both creatively and financially. But can it be repeated, and repeated by those outside established Hollywood? Where do we go from here? ( cue music )

First, I think the novelty of this brought in viewers that it might not have cared if it wasn’t an “event”.

Second, Joss Whedon got this into iTunes as a for-sale item. I bet Felicia Day wishes “The Guild” was $1.99 an episode now, rather than a free podcast, given the show’s bump in visibility. Apple also picked up the bandwidth costs, along with Hulu for the streaming. Indie creators will not receive such treatment.

Third, iTuners expect TV episodes to be $1.99, not $3.99. And make no mistake, this was a single episode of a show, not three episodes.

I can easily imagine something of the quality – production and content wise - as Dr. Horrible being completely underwritten by an advertiser at up to $1,000,000 an episode – making it free to viewers as a video podcast.

These are the hurdles that have to be overcome before those outside the “establishment” can monetize their creations as effectively. But I think it will have two effects quite quickly.

You will see creators with a name that draws viewers – Joss Whedon, James Cameron, George Lucas, Aaron Sorkin, Ron Moore, Seth MacFarlane, Judd Apatow – these are all creators that can get people to work for them for cheap for a piece of future action. These are creators with the personal capital to underwrite a high quality production. These are creators whose name alone will draw interest and viewers. They can do pilots the networks will not, and get them in front of the only people that matter – viewers. I foresee a moment in the near future where a pilot the networks shun is created and premiered online, then moves into great success in “mainstream” media. Think quarterlife only not so, um…. bad.

I think you will also see creators getting clauses in their contracts to take canceled shows and continue them online. Remember, the network standard is not “Can this show make money?” but “Can this show make more money than anything else we can put in the same timeslot?”. Shows like Arrested Development or Firefly, that were not successful enough for the network, but could find great success online, and in doing so the financial benefits for their creators could be great. And the variety and quality of programming available to viewers could be even greater.

Again - i did a lot of guessing, and could be off my rocker. It’ll be interesting to see how things pan out once real numbers start to emerge.

Apple Sucks

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:44:46 -0700

I had to wipe every entry because the switch from .mac to MobileMe was handled by retarded elves.

All the comments got toasted, but I reposted every entry.

Sorry.

Film is My Drug

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:43:10 -0700

I have a stressful life. I'm not complaining. I have a job that has provided me with what will likely be the most amazing experience of my life. All the hours and drama and so on that goes on - so totally worth it. But all that being said, I have a stressful life.

I work hours that are straight out of Dickens. I have a lot of responsibility on my shoulders. On top of that, I'm trying to get my writing career off the ground. And I have podcasts to do, stand up shows - I’ve got a lot on my plate.

But this isn't about that.

This is about how amazing film is.

A good film is a gift to the world. It can transport the viewer to a different place. It can make a happy person sad. It can make a sad person laugh. It can scare the living bejesus out of you, either with cheap scares or haunting psychological thrills.

Not every film is a work of art. But it doesn't need to be. Is "Wanted" on the same level as "2001"? No. Does it have to be? Absolutely not. They both transported me to their world and made me believe. The both did their job.

I love the feeling of sitting in a theater, as the lights go down, the sound swells, and I'm off to a different place.

I love coming home from a day filled with the stress and the pressure of making a multimillion dollar film, and popping in a DVD and forgetting all that. Some people drink. Some people do drugs. I have film.

I feel very lucky to work in film. To be a part of that. Knowing that maybe, someday, something I have worked on, even in some small capacity, may have that effect on someone?

Wow.

This post was inspired by the film "Almost Famous". Cameron Crowe, thank you.

Redrockin’ in the Free World

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:43:07 -0700

I went up to visit the guys at Redrock Micro today. They were kind enough to slap my Canon HG10 on the rig so I could test it out with my camera. I’m quite pleased with the results. Keep in mind I had no measurements and no external monitor, so the focus is a little buzzy, even when it’s supposed to be in focus. The compression artifacts are partly from the camera's AVCHD compression, some from the h.264. I didn’t use the “pure” HDMI out.

I was really happy with what I saw, and bought one as soon as I got back to the office.

Peer Pressure

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:42:47 -0700

http://twitter.com/davidstripinis

I’m. So. Addicted.