By Tyler Weaver
Tyler is a filmmaker and a writer.  This article first appeared in MULTI-HYPHENATE a  blogazine he created,  featuring articles by the new wave  of creatives.

Judy Berman’s article from Flavorwire, “Why is Indie Film Dying While Indie Music Thrives?” has, to say the least, stirred some argument, such as Filmmaker Magazine’s Scott Macaulay in his response “How Cool is Indie Film?” and all over the Twitterverse.

I don’t think “indie” film is dying at all.  I think it’s being reshaped – the very definition of “indie” is undergoing transformation in that there really is no single definition.  Everyone has their own.   “Indie” film has a bright future, but I think one thing needs to happen before that future can be bright – the abandonment of the term in all creative fields.

For many, “indie” is used as a badge of honor, “I’m an independent artist…” or a crutch, “I can’t get the money because I’m an indie.”  The term “indie” is  utilized and defined in so many ways that it’s lost all meaning.  There’s a stigma to it, there’s a badge of honor.  “Indie” is controversial. “Indie” is better.  “Indie” is worse.  “Indie” is quirky.  “Indie” is hard core.  “Indie” is real.  “Indie” is a stepping stone.  And worst of all – “Indie” is an excuse.

That’s just a small smattering of how “indie” is used across all forms of art, criticism, study, and pop culture (another term that should be abandoned).  There’s no single definition, and that deadens the creative title we creatives work so hard at mastering.

Filmmaker.  Photographer. Comic Book Creator.  Writer.  Musician.  Add “indie” to that and see what connotations arise – both good and bad.

In Michael Chabon’s wonderful book of non-fiction essays, Maps and Legends: Reading and Writing Along the Borderlands, he writes “I read for entertainment, and I write to entertain.  Period.”  Entertainment is entertainment, and in spite of what we may think, we’re here to entertain, to illuminate, and to please ourselves and hopefully an audience, because unless we do that – there’s no “next project.”

Why do we have to be “indie?”  Can’t we just be filmmakers? Authors? Musicians?  I don’t care about being cool.  I care about being good, always improving, and entertaining.

Last week, I wrote on this site, the wall between audience and creator is gone, and as that wall goes down, “indie” and “studio” or “mass produced” blur together.  People want to be entertained, and we need to be there to do it for them.  Once we stop, then not just “indie” film or “indie” music will die – but entertainment as a whole.

Stop labeling.  Stop excusing.  Make content.  Deliver.  Entertain.  The how and means to which you get there are immaterial (studio, independent funding – oops, there’s another one).  What matters is HOW you entertain.  That’s your voice.

Entertainment is entertainment.  Who cares where it comes from?  Just be sure you’re the one entertaining and that you do so with a voice.  That’s true independence, and the only kind that matters.

And as long as people have a brain and a creative streak, it’s not going anywhere.

And yes.  I’m going to practice what I preach and make a conscious effort to remove the prefices “indie” and “independent” from my Filmmaker credit.  I am what I am.

Tyler Weaver is an independent filmmaker and unrelenting multi-hyphenate, a regular contributor to the pulptone.com website, and is the founder and EIC of Multi-Hyphenate… which you’re reading right now. He’s currently making new things…

by Tyler Weaver

I hate remakes.

Well, OK.  That’s not a hundred percent true.  I love some of them – Huston’s MALTESE FALCON, Carpenter’s THE THING, Scorsese’s CAPE FEAR, Cronenberg’s THE FLY, and Hitchcock’s remake of his own THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (of which Hitch said, “the original was the work of a gifted amateur; the remake the work of a professional”).

All that said, I’m doing a remake of one of my own works here.  No, not a film. I’m not going to remake THE FOURTEEN MINUTE GAP (though I don’t deny wanting to tinker with it again).  I’m going to remake – revisit – an article I wrote for my MULTI-HYPHENATE blog, waaaay back in the day when it was a Tyler-exclusive site (OK, September 2009).

When Maria and I discussed me writing another article for this wonderful site, I brought up the idea that she was more than welcome to take any article I had written and republish it on her site.  I put forth the article, I’M A FILMMAKER WITH KARATE CHOP ACTION, which I figured would be a good one, extolling my belief that the filmmaker is the product – and the films they create are parts of that product.

Looking back on the article, I realized I wanted to change some things, and alter a few ideas according to my development in the past six months.  And here we are…

For those who follow me on my Twitter adventures (how I met Maria, and how 95% of the contributors to the new Multi-Hyphenate came about), or on my Facebook pages, or on any litany of social networking accounts, a question may be posed:

“You’re a filmmaker, right?  Aren’t you supposed to make flicks?  It seems like all you do is run your mouth about hating remakes, cursing Fox programming decisions, sickeningly talking about your dog like she’s the greatest thing in existence, and/or promoting other peoples’ movies?.”

Well… yeah.  But.

Social networking, blogging -  the internet in general – have all torn down the wall between the consumer of the product I create (movies) and the creator of the product (moi).  Why on earth would I want to keep them at arm’s length?  Why would I want to hide from that?  I enjoy conversing with them, and I enjoy letting them see a more complete picture of the brand that is me.

And that’s the idea.  The filmmaker is a BRAND.  Like Apple.  Like Microsoft. Google.  Gerber. Hershey’s. Jack Daniels. Johnnie Walker. GAP.  The films we make are the PRODUCT.  People buy the product and in doing so, remain faithful to the brand – if they like the product.

Alfred Hitchcock was (and is) not only a master filmmaker, but a brand.  When you watch a Hitchcock picture, you know you are watching a Hitchcock picture.  And this was very much by design – Hitch was a master filmmaker, AND a master marketeer.  Hitchcock was the Apple of filmmakers.  Without the floors in his stores flown in from his own mountain.

In today’s ADD-fueled, hyper-active lack of attention, anything you want in a single click world, a year or two between movies is a long time to let your brand fade into obscurity – no matter how good the product is.  And especially if you’re a filmmaker in the DIY world, where technology has given anyone – professional or schmuck – far easier access to content creation than before – “here today, gone tomorrow” is a very, very real phenomenon.

We’re in an age where films come and go at a breakneck pace.  Nearly everything is available at the click of a button – through legal or illegal means.  It is no longer enough to focus on one film, but a body of work that is built throughout your entire career.  And I don’t consider my films to be the end-all-be-all of my body of work.

Everything from the corporate interview spots to the non-profit fundraising videos, to the historical documentaries, commercials, feature-length films, short films, blog posts, television reviews, articles, photographs, random doodles, music videos, and music I write are all part of the brand I’m creating for myself.  I am a filmmaker, yes.  But I’m a human being first, with broad interests, fascinations, and peculiarities that I like to share with people.

As filmmakers – content creators – we are storytellers, yes,  but our greatest story is the real-life tale of our creative journey through the treacherous waters of our career; our successes, our failures.  The story of the filmmaker, of the visual artist, of the creative – is the script I could never sit down and write.

We are the protagonists in our own script.  The films (or books, or music, or quilts) we make are the products, and the success or failure of those products are the turning points in the script of our careers.

It’s the audience that helps write it, by fueling our successes, by staying with us through our failures (if they choose to).  Without the audience, the script of our career is never fully written.  Without their interest, our script is relegated to file 13.

It’s of paramount import that we content creators not only join in on tearing down the walls between content and creator, but to smash through with our own sledgehammer.  It’s only by doing this – by expanding our brand, and continually letting our audience into our creative world – that we will succeed.

They say (and I say) that a film script is written three times.  When it’s written, when it’s directed, and when it’s edited.  The script of our careers is continually re-written; it’s now become a live document, written by our audience the world over.

The movie is no longer just on the big screen.  It’s in the lives we lead and the image we project to our loyal fans and followers – who are no longer nameless, faceless box office receipts, but rather real people living their own script.

Our brand must be part of their lives, we must become the character in the script of our careers that they root for.  It’s by doing so that the products we create will be defined as success or failure – positive or negative turning points.

Give the audience a protagonist to root for, and they’ll want more.

Follow up post from yesterday by King Is A Fink.

Yesterday, Jessica King, from the filmmaking duo of King Is A Fink wrote an article (see below) about how they make films and tell stories.  Today, on their blog is  an insightful follow up on how they discover what works and what doesn’t when making a film.

Art speaks to the human experience. It also encourages interaction. We share it, look at it, link to it, and talk about it. What’s ironic is that, for many, art production is often a task carried out in private. Not for Julie and I – for us, filmmaking offers the opportunity to explore stories with other people, not only after the film is finished, but during the development and production.

Wouldn’t it be easier if the two of us just wrote our movies and filmed them without input from our friends, actors, composers, props people, etc.? Possibly. Maybe it’d be even smoother if one of us wrote the movie and then the other directed it. Less talking, more filming. But then our final product wouldn’t be as rich, and the process, not as fun. We’re more interested in storytelling that is shared.

Since we’re a screenwriting duo, it’s natural that we start with each other. All of our screenplays begin when one of us has a small, creative flash – an image, a concept, a personality with intriguing implications. Once the idea is shared, it enters the world and becomes a dialogue between two. We explore the ideas in depth, create characters, construct scenarios. It is a shared process, dialogic from the outset.

Jessica & Julie on set of "Libidoland"

Discussion doesn’t stop once the script is finished. Because we produce our own short films, we get to share and explore the ideas once again – with actors, cinematographers, composers, our friends. It is at this point that the work changes and deepens once more. And the deepening is manifold.

• While making Libidoland, we had many insightful conversations with our lead actress about her experiences as a dominatrix. We learned about both the motivations for doing that kind of work as well as what the clients were into and expected. Most importantly, we talked about the prevalence of different tastes and desires beyond what’s considered “normal,” an issue that lies at the heart of the film.

• While making Sound Sleeper, my sister and I found ourselves laughing until we cried about comical memories from our childhood and comparing them to what our parents remembered. My dad, of course, had no recollection of being the cause of so much nighttime drama.

• While making Snow Bunny, the people who wanted to contribute the most were my nieces who played Mandy and Delilah. Being from a broken home themselves, they immediately understood the tension, the anxiety, and the isolation their characters felt. Both girls brought a lot to their roles – sometimes too much, as my eldest niece sometimes wanted to use the film as a vehicle to vent her anger at her own neglectful parents.

Though these discussions and conversations in the midst of filmmaking are not always whimsical or fun, this is where the true joy of filmmaking lies – in connecting with others and exploring what it means to be human.

Jessica w/ cast & crew of "Anxiety Acres"

The final step, of course, is to find an audience, share our work, and get their thoughts. Although we’ve enjoyed a relatively small audience for our films, an extraordinary amount of discussion has been generated, especially for Snow Bunny and Libidoland. We love that people have a lot of opinions, and we aim in the future to open our world, find a larger audience, and engage with even more people.

So what happens after we get our audience’s feedback? Well, we want to make another movie, of course. Back to the drawing board…

Thanks to Jessica and Julie for joining us today. To find out more about the filmmaking team of King is A Fink visit their website. I also strongly recommend you follow them on Twitter – they’re smart, funny, and understand the art of communication and the tweet.

View their work:

Libidoland

Sound Sleeper

Snow Bunny

Live @ Sundance 2010: Producers Round Table Part 3

I am but a guppy in the filmic ocean of bigger fish.

My playground has – thus far – been the realm of historical documentary, music video, promotional videos, and music documentary. But, it’s by being a guppy in such a big ocean that I’m able to adapt quickly, alter course, and go into those places the bigger fish can’t play. I can fit into little niches that the hammerhead sharks of tradition can’t go, without turning sideways and bending to circumstance. They’re not willing.

I am.

My most recent project, the music documentary GATHER ‘ROUND THE MIC , was an exercise in breaking away from my old ways of doing things, much as my present collaboration with my writing partner is a complete change from GATHER. For the purposes of illustration and illumination, I’ll chat a bit about GATHER – the whos, the whys, the whens, the hows, and the what nows.

When GATHER came to me, I was in the midst of a complete upheaval in my life. I was relocating from Boston back to my home state of Ohio, and was searching for a house and new beginning. One evening, I went to check my MySpace filmmaker profile to see if anyone had any gems of encouragement for my work (they didn’t). However, this time, something was different about my page. My “Screenwriter/Director” credit was in Swedish. Perplexed, I went to the one place where answerscan be trusted – the MySpace Filmmaker’s forum. Inside was a message from a bloke calling himself Skunkfoot. It read:

“Music Festival in Cleveland. Help!”

I like music. I like Cleveland (most of the time). I had some camera equipment and a desire to
do something different & new. So I jumped in, said “I’ll do it,” and a week later was standing in a
backyard with a camera, an extension chord, and lots of DV tape.

This brings up the first topic: WHY?

I jumped at the chance to do GATHER for two reasons. One, it sounded fun and was close by.
Two, I wanted to do it. That’s it. There’s no deeper meaning here. No hidden messages, no
desire to change the world. Bottom line: it sounded like fun.

The experience of making GATHER was something I’ll never forget. Yes, it was really hard. It’s
a 15-person concert movie shot with one camera and no budget. That the film was even
completed is a minor miracle in and of itself. Regardless of that, I came out of shooting the
picture having made some of the best friends I’ve ever had. Creative, talented, and interesting
people from all walks of life, from all over the world, doing something they love – and brought
together by MySpace and social networking.

That’s an important thing here. I’ve said before on my blog, Multi-Hyphenate that social media has torn down all of the walls between audience and creative – but it’s also created opportunity. GATHER wouldn’t have happened without MySpace. 95% of the contributors to my Multi-Hyphenate blog came from Twitter. You wouldn’t be reading this article right now, were it not that Maria and I found a mutual admiration of one another’s work through Twitter.

To deny the power of social media as a filmmaker and visual storyteller is as much a death sentence as saying “I just want to direct.” Your art may be great. You may be the next Picasso, Spielberg, Scorsese, Adams, or Renoir, but it doesn’t mean a damn thing if no one knows about it.

Following the shooting of GATHER, it took me around nine months to churn out a finished product. In those nine months, my life was in a continuous state of flux – the upheaval and new beginnings taking hold with a mixture of tragic loss and wonderful new things. And somehow, overcoming my own perfectionistic tendencies and “chicken with head cut off” work/career/home lack of balance, I finally finished GATHER ‘ROUND THE MIC in April, 2009.

Then I gave the movie away for free.

And we’re not talking the SITA SINGS THE BLUES “free,” with merchandising and all the other
fun stuff. We’re talking FREE. As in “I’m going to put it on my website, and people can watch
it.”

Why?

Firstly, in the spirit of the Gatherings, the musicians in the film paid their own way to the show,
the show was free, and it was all about coming together and doing something you loved. There
was no money exchanged (except for pizza and beer). In total, the movie cost me $800 to make
(and IMDb flagged that entry as “are you sure??” prompting me to switch it to $10,000 to get in,
then I switched it back following IMDb approval). The costs were: New 500GB Drive. Shotgun
mic. DV Tape. Gas. Food. And that’s it.

Due to my relative low cost to churn out a big project (for me – it was 20 hours of footage over three days that I turned into an 83-minute film), I couldn’t justify spending the money to make DVDs, to ship them, what have you. It would have cost me more money to sell the movie than it took to make it – and that’s not a worthwhile scenario. And hell – out of all of it, the best thingthat came from the film was that I started working with my perpetual go-to sound guy, Jay Cox, who is featured in the film and plays one mean blues slide guitar.

So, I did what any digital producer/filmmaker/multi-hyphenate should do when the paved roads
are closed. I took an off-road detour and experimented. Though experiments are risky, there’s
really only two outcomes: they either succeed, or they fail.

GATHER was met with resounding indifference upon its online release (outside the group of
musicians for whom it was made). There were a number of reasons behind that. Off hand, I can
think of a few.

• It’s a concert film/music documentary that is sort of a new thing, in that there’s no soundtrack
album, no established artist. It’s filled with largely unknown musicians playing original songs
which means EXTREMELY niche market.

• Is it a great film? No. As I said in my commentary track for the film (available at my website, I never set out to make a great film. I’m proud that in spite of all the craziness surrounding the making of the flick, that a little slice of life movie with a lot of heart came out of it.

• No one wants to watch a movie on their computer. Especially a movie as outlined in point one.

But – thanks to this being the new age of digital production and distribution, I used that to my advantage. I took the movie, and sliced it into 13 bite-sized morsels called GATHER ‘ROUND THE MIC: THE NIBBLY EDITION.  The logic being that one would be more willing to watch a bunch of little pieces that they could shuffle around like a music album than one chunk of a flick online.

That experiment was more successful, though the final results have been less than mind blowing.  And that’s OK.

The film festival question has come up frequently, and to answer the question: Yes. I submitted
GATHER to film festivals, but rapidly came to the conclusion that paying someone to watch this
little flick and decide if it’s worthy of being on a big screen was ludicrous. It hardly cost me
anything to make. I wasn’t in it for awards, I was in it for eyes. Internet release solved the
problem. Eyes with a click – but even fiercer competition in web sites and all the other
distractions that come with the internet. GATHER was not accepted at any of the film festivals I
submitted it to, and I’ve laid out the reasons above (Niche market, not a great film, but a good
little slice of life with heart).

So what now? I’ve got a feature film that few people have seen (but on the whole, seem to have
enjoyed), and given it away for free. This brings me to my three golden rules of digital
filmmaking:

• Never take the quick fix when you can start forming long term investments in your career and
future .

• You are ALWAYS marketing. The films you make are a product. As a filmmaker/creative/whatever, YOU are the brand.

• Be honest with yourself and be realistic. But don’t be afraid to take risk.

I knew that making GATHER would be a calculated risk. I didn’t expect it to catapult me onto the
international stage, where a bevy of buxom beautiful women would surround me, hanging on my
every word. I made the film because I wanted to make it, and I made the film I wanted to make.
And at the end of the day – that’s the most important thing.

It is undoubtedly a film by me. It demonstrates my point of view on a particular topic at a particular time in my life with a particular budget and is a record of my skill set at this point and time. No one else would have made the same film that I made, but it bears the brand I’ve created for myself. Low budget, high impact, with good storytelling and heart.

Though GATHER didn’t take the world by storm, had I not taken the risk with it and used it as an opportunity to explore new forms of self-distribution, I wouldn’t be writing this today. I wouldn’t have gained the creative capital to turn Multi-Hyphenate into a successful (so far) blogazine featuring articles from the new creatives I’m interested in. I wouldn’t be writing a great script with my writing partner, Paul Klein and cementing an amazing writing and producing partnership.  And I wouldn’t have a video record of all the memories from one of the most wonderfulexperiences of my creative life.

I have a long way to go as a filmmaker, but with technology on my side, my feet on terra firma and my head in a “learn, learn, learn” mindset, I’m going to keep pressing on, through success and failure, through thick and thin.

It’s a big ocean, and we all have to carve out our place. We’re guppies, yes, but we’ve got to be guppies with big, sharp, pointy teeth – the best of both worlds.

Tyler Weaver is an independent filmmaker and the EIC and Founder of Multi-Hyphenate , a blogazine featuring articles and contributions from all sorts of hyphenated creatives as they navigate the new medialandscape. He also contributes weekly television reviews as a columnist for the pulptone.com website.

Follow Tyler Weaver on Twitter

Gather ‘Round the Mic – Trailer II from Tyler Weaver on Vimeo.

TV Land finds love

“First Love, Second Chance” is a new six-episode original series on TV Land.  It’s a great title and accurately describes this docu-drama-reality series.  Each episode will feature a different couple who were once emotionally involved but who have since broken up.  They may have been apart for as long as 20 years.  Personally, if I broke up with you 20 years ago, I’ve probably moved on.  But that may not be the case in this series, as the viewer takes a week long journey with each couple as they try to go beyond their past and rekindle the romance that once was.  The series premiers on Wednesday, March 10^th at 10:00 p.m ET/PT.  The executive in charge of production is Marco Bresaz who I’d had the pleasure of working with and for my money there’s none better – so I’ll absolutely tune in and find out what this series is all about.

You bring the peanuts, I’ll bring the crackerjacks

I’m a baseball fan, I admit it.  Well to be honest, I’m a Yankee fan.  Nothing better than watching a game at Yankee Stadium, even if I am in the nose bleed section.  But if you can’t get to the game, there’s always television.  From April to October you can watch a baseball game across many channels several nights a week.  But for some fans, that doesn’t seem to be enough.  For the real die-hards who need their fingers on the pulse of every hit, run and error – there’s Major League Baseball TV (MLB.TV), one of the largest subscription based internet sites with over 2 million subscribers.  And to make watching baseball even easier, MLB.TV now offers mobility – you can watch games through your iPad, iPhone or iTouch, with more streaming options coming before opening day.  So, fans if you’re at a wedding and the Yankees are playing the Red Socks – no worries, you can whip out your iPhone and pretend you’re reading urgent messages from the office.  MLB.TV’s subscriptions begin as low as 99.95 for the year and that’s cheaper than a couple of tickets to Yankee Stadium.  Hmmm… now there’s an idea.

Now that deserves a standing Ovation.

Over the years arts education has been slashed and then slashed some more.   I’m all from STEM education (science, technology, engineering and math) and it’s certainly important for us to create the next scientific leaders – but technology without the human spirit is in my opinion folly.  When you don’t balance science with the humanities – one could create a future we’re now seeing in so many movies and books – a post-apocalyptic barren waste land. Sorry, was that a tad dramatic?  No, I don’t think so.  The arts must be supported for any culture to survive.

The new arts education program created by Ovation TV and Cable in the Classroom is a fantastic way to enhance young people’s education.   The network  worked with NYC area art teachers and students in developing the  lessons and selecting programming clips from Ovation TV documentaries.  This project and its outcome will serve as the cornerstone of Ovation TV’s free web-based initiative.

Social Media is TV’s Last Hope

According to Broadcasting & Cable, Elisabeth Murdoch, who is News Corp. chair Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, told TV producers and distributors at the annual National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE) convention in Las Vegas:

We in the TV business have to catch up with what our audience is doing. We can no longer afford to be one-screen business. Social networks are finally the interactive dimension of storytelling. We now need to evolve with our audience. To resist this would be like resisting Technicolor.

David Baker is a filmmaker, director and actor.  I learned about David by reading an interview he gave to producers Joke Fincioen and Biagio Messina. I found him so fascinating I started following him on Twitter and since then have discovered he’s a filmmaker with that rare combination of a strong creative voice coupled with a business savvy that reaches beyond the typical producer’s job description. David wrote, produced, directed, acted and distributed his latest film, Mission X.

Mission X is the story of Grant, a documentary film student who wants to travel to Iraq and document real war.  Grant’s only experience with war is his expertise with his military Xbox game. He meets Ryan a mercenary who agrees to have him document him while he recruits a group of mercenaries for a private mission. Thinking he’ll be able to get up close and personal to a ‘foreign’ battle, Grant discovers the war is right at home.

I asked David if he wouldn’t mind answering a few questions about his film and his distribution process.

I’m going to start with a ‘typical’ question, because I am genuinely curious – how did you get the idea for Mission X?

I have had many ideas for films over the years but up until the last couple of years, I was writing screenplays that were too expensive, out my reach. I decided to come up with a concept, that could be told on a micro budget. Just to get me kick started after a long gap. So the germ came from a practical basis first.

I wanted to keep it in more or less the one location, kind of “Clerks”, “Res Dogs” style. A character story, but at the same time having a non linear set up that would cut away to action, cinematic stuff. I didn’t just want guys talking in a room 90 minutes.

I had no interest in the military at all, but I have always been interested in people’s personal battles, which can be harder to win than any war. So I wanted a story with characters that were fine in war, they survived dangerous missions, but their personal wars were harder to win when they came back to dull suburbia. And that’s why they partly do this mission that is almost suicidal. They trained to live on the edge, not to exist, settle. That can kill ya!

I also wanted to show myself as a filmmaker that could do some thrilling stuff, action, but that’s very hard to do well with no money. I had watched a lot of action Iraq videos, and military body cams, so I thought it would work to bring that type of reality action into the film. It suits the story, and it would be cheap to pull off. I also liked the idea where one minute this young gamer filmmaker is playing military games, next minute he’s in the thick of it on a real mission in his city.

You describe your film as a micro budget, self financed feature film.  Self-financing a film requires extra attention to every line in the budget.  What steps did you take as the producer to ensure the ‘director’ in you didn’t get carried away and spend more than you allocated?

It’s impossible to get carried away when you literally have no money anyway. I started the first day with £30. It was a simple scene with me (I play the Merc leader) and the film student. Once I shot that, I got the website up, pictures, people began to see the vision, and then I got offered lots of stuff that nobody would give me before. People got inspired enough to get on board

I shot another cheap scene, and shortly after that, others saw the concept, and then I got a top armourer on board. So it kind of rolled like that. I saw how Chris Nolan had shot “Following” this way over a year (Dark Knight) filmmaker, so I approached it in this piecemeal way.

I knew it would be gritty, cheap looking, but I felt that would add to the fact that this does look as if a REAL student has followed these guys. So then the budget does not become an issue, hinder the movie. The whole film cost about £4000, including post.

I got a little investment from a worker at the burger bar I worked at, after he saw footage from the gun battle, but most of that was used to buy a new computer, hard drives etc for the post. I would rather have had a producer on board, or even co-producer, as it did hugely affect my creative side, but I will continue to produce my own work until I can find the right person. It’s my future goal to partner with someone who believes in what I am trying to do.

You spoke with producers Joke and Biagio about why you made the decision to distribute your film and not rely on traditional distribution methods.  Since that interview what success have you had with self distribution and what would you change if you had to start again today?

To be 100% honest, I did know from day one I wanted to self distribute, but my real goal was simply to make a calling card for private investors, industry to see, because I had such a gap from my first funded feature.  I knew I was making a very cheap film, and because of that, I knew I would have the freedom to hold on to it, experiment with it, retain rights. If I had a large investment, I might have had pressure from others to take a more conventional approach. That’s why I think new filmmakers should keep the budget very low.

I attracted investment to do a little tour across the UK, but the guy wanted a bigger cut at the last minute. That would have allowed me to do screenings, and really get the film out there. It would have also paid for the very basics of the cinema release in Scotland, as a top multiplex chain saw it, and wanted to test it on an audience.

I have no regrets, because I never assumed a cinema would want a £4000 movie, so it did give me a boost that I might have a glimmer of talent. I believe I can make films for indie and big audiences, so it has made me focus on getting the bigger budget version into development. So I treat Mission X as my short film, and I am using it to develop the US remake.

MissionX is selling a steady flow of DVD’s. Enough to keep running, but I know I could make 1000 times more if I gave up my ambition, and just focused on sales for another year or two, but then I am a sales person and not a filmmaker. There has to be a balance. I would rather make more films, climb higher, and it will make more sales on a slower burn. I have the Roger Corman attitude, make films! However, in my next film, the global tour, marketing plan is at the forefront of my strategy. I believe in a solid six months marketing, but make the marketing and selling fun, that ways it’s not a drag.

Once I partner with more military sites, get downloads up, cool merchandise, it will roll faster. It’s doing the job I intended. It’s also attracting the investment for this horror movie, and it will give my investor a great return over the next few years.  I know in the worst case scenario, the £4000 Mission X will easily make a very healthy profit over the next 18 months. Especially when I can afford cool merchandise.

What would I have done different? I can’t regret anything, because I was 1000% from even calling myself a filmmaker just 18 months ago. I was working in a burger bar, with zero contacts, and pretty down. This little flick is already opening many doors, so even if it did not make a penny, it’s already done its job.

Mission X has a large potential for merchandising opportunities, particularly to males ages 18-35.  What types of merchandising have you done or plan to do with the film?

The age range for this version is around 18 to 35. It’s a more introspective, character driven film than it looks. A remake would be for a younger global gamer market.  I am not a big believer in just throwing out t-shirts, mugs, and then wondering why people don’t buy them. It needs more effort than that.

Somebody pointed out to me that the hit military game “Modern Warfare 2” has a character that wears a similar mask to what we have in the film. A lot of young males are looking for these masks, so I am on to a few companies to try and get the best deal to manufacture them. I also wanted to put an Xbox live file of the film on to a flash USB drive, that looks like an ak-47 bullet.

If the film gets pirated, it’s easy to find the Mission X name on top of the search engines. Some traffic could go there, see the masks, cool looking flash drives, (That are cool to own even outside the film) so I could then start making sales on these. I also have my eye on dog tags, and several other merch items.

If the film really spreads, and if I get a remake deal, then people also go back to the original film. So this little flick, and all the stuff connected with it, could be a bigger earner for the rest of my life. It could turn into a brand, so that’s why I am patient in this biz. Nothing is overnight. And that’s why I turned down small offers from sales agents and distributors.

I understand you’re working on a larger U.S. remake of Mission X – can you tell me about that?

I am working on a horror at this minute, with a tour, and if I am successful with this, I think that will really give me the clout to get the remake done. I am packaging the MX remake  this year to take to the states. Get an agent on board, and finding a producing partner. We know the industry is bumpy at the moment but Hollywood will always want big event style films. My remake version is in that mold.

The £4000 version was never written as a big movie, made with a no budget. It was written to suit the budget. So we see the film student hang out with this Merc leader as he prepares the attack, and then he gets to hang out with the gang before the attack. Mixed with some action in different time frames. So it does not look like a $15m movie that was made on the cheap.

After I saw the film in the edit, I realized this remake has HUGE potential to appeal to a global gamer market. Not a CGI film, but a real gritty “Cloverfield” meets “Black Hawk Down” style film. Some “Saving Private Ryan” style wild action.  It came to me in minutes.

The remake would start like a Spielberg film, where an ordinary character lives in dull suburbia. His friends are all gamers, “armchair Adventurers”. They live on the edge, but a dull edge of inactivity, entertainment, booze, drugs. He wants to go to Iraq, but wants to speak to a Merc he met online for his college documentary.

That night he is picked up by a chopper, taken to an airfield hangar, 50 mercs have just landed, and they are all preparing for a revenge attack in a US city. (All shot through his HD camcorder very real. District 9 style)

He gets his interview with the Merc leader, but then gets to go on the attack. The movie then kicks into a rollercoaster, as they attack the city building, then spend the rest of the film trying to escape the 1000 armed contractors who try to kill them all. They chase them all over the city. So it’s much more of a thriller for an international audience.

The movie would also have a transmedia aspect to it, where you don’t see a boot camp scene in the movie, but you do on video diaries, and you see other POVs of the mercs bodycams before the film comes out.

Ninety minute big films have to really move these days, but character stuff can spin off to transmedia, to support promo trailers. Even mini movies from other POVs. This way you get to explore interesting characters on the web, away from the pure thriller movie ride. So it’s the best of both.

It’s also all part of a viral marketing plan, and spin off story telling. I also have a solid sequel, possible game, theme park. The game and theme park is a bit ambitious, but I always think you should aim beyond your reach. If your life ambition is just to make a £4000 movie on your doorstep, than that’s all you will get. I have bigger plans.

David’’s very clever when it comes to marketing.  He’s created a great website for “Mission X” where you can also purchase the DVD. And he’s got a new site up for his next film “Death Movie”.  I know we’ll be hearing a lot more from him in the future.  Thanks you David, it was wonderful having you here today.

You can follow David on Twitter @indiemoviemaker or on Facebook

Filmmaker Phil Holbrook

To start off with, I want to say how honored I am that Maria let me take over her blog for the day.  This is a blog that I pay close attention to, and when Maria asked if I would write something about the EgoFest Short Film Festival here in Minnesota, I just about fell off my chair.  Of all the topics I could blather on about, EgoFest is the easiest.

What’s EgoFest?

EgoFest is a one day film festival for shorts.  It takes place in Brainerd, MN on February 20th, 2010.  EgoFest was originally a one time festival four years ago.  Since EgoFest was never planned as an ongoing event, everyone had a great time and then went their separate ways.  But in the last year, questions started coming in from our small community about when the next EgoFest was going to happen.  Now you can only say “I don’t know” so many times before you need to honestly look for a better answer.  That answer…  was to bring back EgoFest.  I’m sure there are a lot of people thinking “that’s nice, but there are tons of film festivals all over the place, and some of those are only for shorts, too.”

How is EgoFest different?

Our motto is “EgoFest is Filmmaker Friendly”.  For starters, we have no entry fee.  Submission to EgoFest is free for all the people who have toiled and cried and bled and screamed and gone without sleep for days, you know… filmmakers.  These filmmakers are trusting us with their babies, what more can we ask?  We gladly get the money to put on the festival from other places.  Also, I’ve heard filmmakers say that for them it’s all about the audience, but for the staff at EgoFest, the festival is all about the filmmaker, they are the stars of the show.  We know how hard filmmaking is and how stressful a screening can be.  So we try to do what ever we can to help put your mind at ease and enjoy the festival.

We are available.

We feel one of the most important parts of “filmmaker friendly” is just plain being available.  We have made sure, with the technology today that we can always be reached.  Check out our contact us page .  If you have questions, concerns, or just want to say hi, you can give a call.  I’ll be happy to hear from you.  You can also email, Facebook, or Myspace (if you’re into that).  Or perhaps, my personal favorite, Twitter.

Let’s tweet.

Twitter has become a tool EgoFest can no longer do without.  We can keep in touch with filmmakers all over the globe, and we do, on an everyday basis.  There are many we have met on twitter that support our festival.  Some have then reached out to us outside of twitter. Film Courage (@filmcouage), Film Snobbery (@filmsnobbery) and Video20Q (@video20q)  were kind enough to invite us onto their shows and let us talk about EgoFest.  We have also recieved many entries as a direct result of meeting filmmakers on twitter.  There are entries from Jessica King and Julie Keck (@kingisafink) , John Trigonis (@Trigonis) , 4D4 Films (@4D4Films) just to name a few.  Twitter also happens to be where I met Maria (@Maria_56).

Alright, I’ll wrap it up.

You don’t have to take my word for it, go look around our website (and don’t forget to take a peek at this years prizes) or go on Facebook or Twitter.  Really, I think that if you take nothing else away from this post (which may be easy to do) I simply want you to know that EgoFest is rooting for you.  We want to see you succeed and we will be here to answer filmmakers’ questions, give some advice, get the word out about your film, or what ever we can do to help you in this crazy business.  And that offer stands, whether you send us a film or not.  Us indie film people need to support each other and stand together.

Thanks again Maria!
Phil Holbrook (@Philontilt)

I met Phil on Twitter, he’s a creative filmmaker I admire and respect, and he’s got a damn good sense of humor.  You’ll see what I mean when you view his latest short film  “Honest Work”. – Maria

Matthew Ostrom is the VP of Current Series and Development for Original Media. Matt and I worked together several years ago and since then he’s been busy creating original programming for a wide variety of networks.  In his current position he has executive produced a large slate of original shows including King of Dirt, Masters of Reception, Swamp People, Destination Design, LA Ink, Storm Chasers, BBQ Pitmasters and many more.  I asked Matt to give us an inside look into how a show goes from an idea to a series.

How did you get involved in production and development?
Matt: I started doing television production in college and then moved to New York City for an internship at HBO my senior year.  At the end of the internship I stayed in the city to start working in production.  I have done a little bit of everything in the television world since then – working and collaborating in reality, hidden camera, game show, comedy, scripted hybrid and talk/variety shows.  I have spent time in front of the camera and on stage as well, and those experiences helped to inform my producing style.  It is a very competitive industry and my diverse background has employed me through lots of ups and downs.

What are some of the deciding factors that can make an idea into something you’d want to develop into a pilot?
Matt: It depends on the show, but for me 99% of the time it’s character – a big, dynamic character in a unique world. So much of the type of docu-soap programming I make starts with a person at the center of a world that is the best at what they do, or is an expert above all the rest.  The type of personality that you can hang a show on. At the center of LA Ink (TLC) is Kat Von D, a compelling personality with an amazing talent.  The King of Dirt (DIY Network) is a simple landscaping show, but at the core of each episode are Gino Panaro and his brother, Ralph. The make amazing landscapes and drive each other a little nuts – in a fun, dramatic way.

Why don’t some pilots make it?
Matt: The unfortunate fact is that most pilots don’t make it.  If one out of ten goes to series, that’s considered successful.  During the pilot phase, you are trying to figure out what the show is, how it works and what the structure is, but there are lots of factors and influences that can throw your project off-track.  Sometimes you have an idea in mind, and sometimes that idea does not translate to screen as well as you hoped.  Or sometimes the network that bought the pilot sees the show differently than you do, and their changes can effectively kill the project.  Sometimes pilots come out great, but the network changes its mandate (e.g., they go from being a lifestyle channel to a cooking channel) and the pilot you made no longer fits on their network.  There are lots and lots of ways a great television show can die.

Was there ever a pilot you made that you were sure would be picked up as a series and wasn’t?  Why?
Matt: Yes.  I did a game show that everyone loved for a music channel.  The network did focus group testing (where they present new shows to large groups of people and find out what these audiences think of them), and the show did really well.  Everything looked great, and the day before the network was going to make a decision about ordering the show, the leadership of the network changed.  When that happens, a new General Manager (GM) is brought in, and when a new GM comes into a network, they often wipe the development slate clean by killing projects that the previous GM was working on.  It’s unfortunate, but a new GM is there to make their own mark with programming they develop.

When a pilot is picked up by the network what are some of the first things you need to do to create a show that will have ‘legs’ for  13 or more episodes?
Matt: To be honest, you really don’t want to do a pilot.  The goal is to walk into a network with a short tape that demonstrates what the show is so that the network development folks want to go straight to series.  This tape has to be awesome – like “make the hairs on your arm stand up” awesome.  If you make a pilot from that tape, it gives the network another chance to find something “wrong” with your show.  Networks can always find something “wrong” with a show, and once you get into a situation where they’re testing and thinking and time is passing, your chances of going to series start to go down.  With that said, sometimes you can’t avoid going to pilot, and it’s in that pilot that you want to demonstrate that the world you are making a show about has lots of stories to tell.  You can help to illustrate that by writing up paper that talks about future storylines or events that are coming up.  Anything that lets the network know that this could be a show that could last a long time with lots of possibilities, lots of exciting things to see.

How does your role change once the show goes from pilot to series?
Matt: It gets easier (hopefully).  The pilot is all about figuring out the formula, doing all the creative heavy lifting.  Once a show goes to series, I hire someone called a showrunner who handles all the day-to-day operations of running a show.  If I hire a really good showrunner than I can sit back and monitor the show from afar.  If the showrunner has trouble, or the talent on the show has problems, then I get involved.  I always say, “my phone only rings when things go to hell.”

Describe a typical day.
Matt: No day is all that typical.  I will check my fantasy football scores first thing in the morning.  Then it’s off and running.  I will screen cuts of shows, give notes, talk to my showrunners and help them problem solve….  I will listen to pitches, meet with network executives and give pitches for shows, or travel into the field to direct pitch tapes.  I spend a lot of time on the phone with network executives who are overseeing my shows.  My day usually starts off calm, and by 4pm, I find that I usually have not eaten lunch and I’m asking myself “what the hell happened to my day!”

Any advice for creatives out there that have an idea of a television show?
Matt: You can pitch to networks.  They have development departments, and they’re always looking for good ideas.  Just pick up the phone and make an appointment. Depending on your level of experience in television, it may make sense for you to partner with a production company.  I would recommend matching your idea with a production company that has a track record for doing that type of programming.  For example if you have an idea for a game show, go to a production company that has a proven track record of making hit game shows.  A company with a track record can get your idea into a high level person at a network, and maybe right to series!  Good luck!

Matt, I appreciate your time, thanks for joining us to day.

Matt’s recent series and Executive Producer credits at Original Media include:
King of Dirt – A how-to-landscaping show for DIY that mixes reality with instruction.
Masters of Reception – A docu-series for TLC set in the behind-the-scenes world of New Jersey’s most successful wedding catering company.
Swamp People – A docu-series for The History Channel set in the swamps of Louisiana.
Destination Design – A home makeover show for HGTV that uses inspirational travel to transform homes.
LA Ink – A docu-series for TLC starring Kat Von D set in and around the tattoo scene of Los Angeles.
Storm Chasers – A series for Discovery that follows a team of scientists and filmmakers as they attempt to intercept tornadoes.
BBQ Pitmasters – A competition docu-series for TLC about the world of competitive BBQ.
Tough As Nails – A docu-series for HGTV centered around one of Boston’s best female homebuilders.
Flowers Uncut – A docu-series for TLC about world-renowned florist, Jeff Leatham.
Duel Survivor – An adventure survival series for Discovery.
Be Good Johnny – An eight part series for The Sundance Channel that follows Johnny Weir on his quest to Olympic glory.