Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Independent films

   

   Brad Inman, Jan 21st, 2006 @ 4:17am

   
   

   Here is an example of how independent filmmakers are using the Web to show their work:
   Http://www.turnhere.com
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Tyshaun, Jan 21st, 2006 @ 9:29am

   
   

   I think having a streaming version is great, but the downloadable version seems like it would really limit the ability of the filmmakers to generate any revenue.
   I'm all for using the internet without fees to help generate buzz for artists that don't have large corporate ad budgets, but I also think it should be limited to giving enough of a "taste" to push people to purchase the product (maybe a video on demand offering or a more traditional online order service). At any rate, my basic point is that it's nice for artists to use the net to get their stuff out there, but they should be able to be make a living from it too.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Whoopee.

   

   Orez, Jan 21st, 2006 @ 8:03pm

   
   

   Online access to leftist political screeds, gay love stories, environmentalist documentaries, and experimental student films. Be still my beating heart.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Downloadable films

   

   Mike Liveright, Jan 22nd, 2006 @ 2:13am

   
   

   My thought was to use something like Movielink for films looking for distributers that were shown at festivals. The downloaded films would be time and copy limited so that if the film got a distributer the downloads would not take away from the theaters. Note: I would also suggest that they would be charged for at some reasonable rate.
   On the other hand,
   1) The films could gather an early set of comments, as the films could be charge less for if the viewer did review it.
   2) The popularity of the film would be measurable by the number of peolle who did decide to download it
   3) There would be some payback for the creator, though of course this would be minor, but at least the creator could get some of their money back before it was distributed by standard methods.
   Thus, allowing the films to be distributed before they were sold to a standard distributor or got to theaters would it seems to me allow many independantly produced films to get a viewing without hurting their final profits and would allow them to gtenerate some "buzz" and money.
   Of course, those of us who were interested in the films could view interesting films early.
   So this seems to be a Win, WIn situation...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   MsReason, Jan 22nd, 2006 @ 6:38am

   
   

   I absolutely agree with Tyshawn. Independent filmmakers are trying to make a living. Downloading their films takes the revenue out of their pockets unless they charge "something". Let the filmmakers show interesting clips to give a taste of their films which should encourage (or discourage)the viewer from wanting to go to the movies and see it for themselves.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Whoopee.

   

   river, Jan 22nd, 2006 @ 11:13am

   
   

   Wow, you're... kind of an asshole. Even if you're not interested in "gay love stories" and "leftist political screeds," that doesn't mean other people aren't interested. If these were right-wing films, I'm sure you would be more than supportive. Not everything has to be about ideology, let's keep the criticism to actually relevant to tech and internet issues.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Whoopee.

   

   rizzn, Jan 22nd, 2006 @ 6:33pm

   
   

   Seriously, it's a joke, River. I'm sure if there *were* a right-wing film festival, and someone cracked a joke about that, you'd laugh and not comment.
   Let's keep the meta-criticism to a minimum.
   Yes, that's meant to be ironical.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Mike (profile), Jan 22nd, 2006 @ 10:17pm

   
   

   I think having a streaming version is great, but the downloadable version seems like it would really limit the ability of the filmmakers to generate any revenue.
   
   These are independent film makers who are trying to make a name for themselves. These are short films that are unlikely to be seen in anything other than a festival.
   
   So wouldn't it make a lot more sense to spread these films far and wide so that the filmmakers get recognition, and so that they can get a bigger paycheck on their next film?
   
   Also, a smart producer would offer to sell the films with lots of extras, so that fans of the download still would want to buy. Just having it as downloadable in no way "limits" the ability of a filmmaker to generate revenue.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Whoopee.

   

   Andrew Strasser, Jan 22nd, 2006 @ 11:39pm

   
   

   Talk about out of control....

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Sundance Festival

    

    Jethro Hurt, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 6:27am

    
    

    I would like to work in the Sundance Festival this January. I understand this is a voluntary post. Please send me application forms. Thanks

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment