Indie television, is it a viable concept?

[jollyreaper2112]

Whenever people talk about the internet, file-sharing, piracy and the like, the argument runs in circles. Some people say that the mainstream media has nothing to offer us and is all crap while others point out that there is something of value since people are downloading it. Then the question comes back to the question of distribution and cartel pricing practices.

My two cents on the matter is that good stuff can be produced via the corporate system, almost as an accident. Up until now, the larger corporations controlled the means of distribution. If you did not play ball with them, your product would not move. For more complicated ventures, they also controlled the means of production. A talented individual could self-finance his own album even if he couldn't get anyone to carry it but no director can self-finance a Hollywood blockbuster action movie. Indie filmmakers may not get any studio money to make the picture but they need national distribution to make any serious money off of it; one of the major studios has to pick up their picture. Video games fall into that mix as well. Years ago, an A+ title could be written by a teenager in his bedroom. While small teams can still put together some interesting games, the A+ blockbuster titles these days have budgets approaching that of major pictures, anyhwere from $20 to $40 million. As the hardware continues to improve, it becomes more and more expensive to put together something that astounding rather than yawn-inducing.

The Internet has already blown the doors off the distribution model and computers are still chipping away at the cost of production. What changes have you guys seen in recent years, which predictions have you not seen come to pass, and what are you looking to see in the future?

Here are a few thoughts I've had on it.

1. So far the net has been good as a hype tool but the payoff is still seen as getting a gig in conventional Hollywood. I'm not seeing people making a living simply off of internet exposure and commerce unless you count the porn stars. I guess this might be a valid comparison. In times past, to make money in porn you had to sign with a major studio. Amateurs are putting sites together and selling online, bypassing the traditional production and distribution chain. But will this remain unique to porn or will mainstream artists be able to get in on it, too?

2. I don't think I've seen any huge breakout artists make it big from Internet exposure. Sites like Youtube should make breaking out all the easier because word of mouth can spread via message boards, IM, and office email. We've seen funny clips like dancing babies, funniest home videos and the Star Wars Kid become zeitgeist celebrities but so far none of that has really translated into lasting cultural relavance.

3. There needs to be a way to translate interest into dollars. On the bright side, it should take less dollars to support a small troupe of artists and performers than an entire corporate behemoth. But will people be willing to pay for it? We see the itunes store, that's a start, but I personally think the prices are too high. Then again, I don't have cable. Other people might think the prices work out if they ditch paying full freight for cable with all these channels they don't watch vs. just paying for the shows they want ala carte.

4. Where is the Monty Python or Seinfeld of the net age? (Note: I don't care for Seinfeld but it is insanely popular.) There are some funny people on Youtube but I've yet to hear of any of that moving beyond there. Even stuff like Lonelygirl15 seems more like flash in the pan rather than lasting success. Happy Slip (http://happyslip.com/) is very funny. I'm not sure where it will go, though. There was an effort to put out an internet TV network back in 1999, I think they called it DEN or something like that, but it flopped bigtime. I think part of the problem was the low broadband penetration at the time.

5. Last thought I had, Lucas made his money off the marketing, not the distribution of Star Wars. Back when I was a kid, the cartoons were basically 30 minute ads for toys interrupted by ads for yet more toys in the commercials. Hasbro and Kenner could have given the shows away and still made money. Everyone gets all caught up in the piracy argument with TV and the net but what if the manufacturer just gave the show away to begin with? Consider it advertising for the merchandise that cannot be easily duplicated. Not sure if the numbers would support this or not.

The perspective I'm coming from with all this, I like to write. I haven't had much time for it being busy with work and the like, but it's something I enjoy. A lot of the ideas I have aren't happy on paper, they'd be much happier in a visual medium. Ah, but that takes money. Since nobody is going to give you money just cuz they want to be a patron of the arts, you have to pay the freight. I still tend to see myself in the Bill Hicks camp when it comes to marketing. :)

[Pab Sungenis]

1. Good television takes resources to make.

Even low budget stuff needs a camera, a studio (or place to shoot), sets that need to be constructed, and editing. It's not easy.

That's why Internet TV hasn't taken off as fast as Internet Radio/podcasts: you can't just sit in your room and record something.

I have some shows I'd like to produce and distribute on the net, but don't have the resources to shoot them...yet.

[jollyreaper2112]

2. you have to know how to work within your limitations

Being a scifi geek, that's where my mind naturally wanders but that's among the most expensive sort of production to make since so much has to be custom-fabricated. Conversely, a half-hour comedy sent in contemporary times should be dead cheap since all the props and costumes are waiting to be bought off the rack. Of course, salaries can change that. No matter how expesive Star Trek got, Seinfeld and Frasier always beat it in terms of cost because of the monster salaries.

All that being said, and agreeing that it costs money to do things right, contemporary dramas and comedies should still be doable within a reasonable budget. It would be hard to look like West Wing on an indie budget; even when they weren't shooting on elaborate sound stages, they still used a lot of equipment to get their look and feel when shooting on location. But why try to emulate their look when you can't? I would try to go more for a story that's supposed to be told through more amateur-style equipment. I'm a huge fan of HP Lovecraft and all of his stories were first-person accounts of strange crap happening to people. It could amost get to the point of self-parody at times like when you have a guy writing "And after I told you my entire tale I can scarcely believe it, even now with the thing slithering down the hall, hearing it's appendage working the doorknob, trying to get into this room---aaaaaaaargh" "What, what did he write?" "He wrote arrrg." "You don't just write aarrgh, you say it." "Well, that's what he wrote!" lol Seems a bit silly when talking about a diary but it makes a lot more sense of you start thinking camcorder. That's what they did with Blair Witch and I think it's a winning route. I thought the scariest parts of the new Dawn of the Dead movie weren't the scenes filmed with professional cameras but the stuff that was shot on news reporter betacam (simulated news report of the zombie outbreak with B5's doctor as the news anchor) and the end footage from the camera carried by the survivors as they made it to what they thought was safety only to be set upon by zombies. That felt a lot more real and scary than the polished Hollywood look.

I mean, when you talk about doing things on the cheap, I've got a story idea that's basically existentialist modern horror. A documentary filmmaker is setting out to make a film about a pop culture suicide cult sweeping the nation. He wouldn't be as notable as a Michael Moore or even a Spurlock but he's produced several previous films and he's recieved some recognition, he's not just a kook. He had a mental breakdown and killed himself. Seveal of his friends collected the material he had shot and, working from his notes, edited it together into a rough cut of what his final product was supposed to be. It would be realtively easy to film since the settings would be commentary segments by the director both with him on-screen and as voiceovers on stock video clips (as seen parodied on the daily show) and personal interviews with various subjects. No special effects, just a lot of talking. I don't even anticipate any more gore than you typically see on the evening news, the horror all comes from the psychological state of mind. The guy seemed very sane and balanced before he went into shooting this film, he was going in as an impartial investigator, how did he come out so unhinged?

Thinking the idea over, I think the hardest part would just be the people-wrangling. The actors can't just be friends you con into it, they'd have be totally convincing. For that I'm guessing you'd get people from local theater groups and bribe them with the idea that they'll get some exposure for this since I doubt there would be enough money to pay them. I think the amount of crew needed would not be more than for a typical TV interview segment so that would be a cameraman and boom mike operator? And some of the scenes you could legitimately get away with shooting on civilian handcams because that's what the director would have had with him on the project. Probably the other tough part would be that you'd want to ape the MTV style of including snippets from current top40 rock in the segments and, since the documentary is covering a fictional social phenomenon, a fictional group of bands would have to be drawn from. In other words, unsigned local bands whose style match the mood and theme of the movie.

All in all, it'd be a shitload of work but a DOABLE shitload of work. And since it would be drawing so much from modern internet culture as well as projecting that stuff into the fictional realm, I think it would find a natural outlet for notoriety via youtube and the like.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. I've done video production. I know what's involved.

The real challenges are, as you put it, finding actors and finding writing talent. I'm hoping to get a show off the ground some time this year, but it's a daunting prospect.

[jollyreaper2112]

4. kewl!

How are you planning on doing it? What's it going to be about? And hopefully none of that is sekrit?

[Pab Sungenis]

5. It's based on a character from my troupe comedy days

The World's Worst children's show host.

A collaborator and I have been writing the outline for the series and getting material. The real trick will be finding a place to shoot it and edit it.