Guest Post by Tyler Weaver

The ingredients that have thus far made up the concoction I call a  career can be described, in a word, as “mucho.” Drummer. Orchestral percussionist.  Composer.  Film composer.  Filmmaker.  Add in a dash of non-profit management and my newest seasoning – critic – and the pierogie that is my hyphenated mish-mash of a career takes on a distinctly saucy turn.

Since September of 2009, I have cast a critical eye on J.J. Abrams’ FRINGE and David Shore’s HOUSE for Anthony Schiavino’s Pulp Tone website.  Last month, I began reviewing the new Mark Valley/Chi McBride/Jackie Earl Haley-starring series, HUMAN TARGET.  They are three distinctly different shows (though not without their similarities), and reviewing them has opened up my eyes to a number things that is done well in television, and a number of ills.

Though the three television shows I review are different, and I can’t apply many of the same criteria to each review, there is one criterion to everything I review that must be present:

CHARACTERS I WANT TO WATCH

If I’m given a story with cool effects, aliens, some T&A, mind-bending twists, and cardboard characters, I’m out.  (I’m looking at you, “V.”)

Character is key.  These are characters that I welcome into my home each week, characters that I want to follow.  I loathe hospital shows.  I love HOUSE.  Were it not for the amazing ensemble cast and the wonderful performances from Hugh Laurie and Robert Sean Leonard, I would be gone.  “Doctor with bad beside manner solves mystery cases.”  Great.  But I don’t care.

FRINGE would be just another X-FILES rip-off were it not for the performances of John Noble as Walter Bishop, Joshua Jackson as Peter Bishop, and Anna Torv (more or less) as Olivia Dunham.  If I didn’t care about these people, they wouldn’t make it past a minute of my time.

The essence of great storytelling can be boiled down into one statement:

Fascinating people in difficult situations.

That’s it.  It’s why the hero is defined by the antagonist – the situation must be more difficult than the protagonist can handle at the story’s beginning.  The protagonist must grow through defeating their own demons, fears, etc. to overcome that which is bigger than them.

Simply because I want to watch a character doesn’t mean I have to like the character.  In fact, if I don’t, I’m even more intrigued.  I want to see what makes these people tick.  I don’t need to like them.  I just have to empathize with them.

If I’m going to stick with a show, and give up an hour of my life weekly for 10, 12, 13, 22 weeks or longer, I had better want to watch these people.  Otherwise, it’s like going to a party filled with people you don’t like, just because it’s a party.  Why would I waste my time?

There’s another element to my reviews – programming.  Much of my complaining is leveled at the networks for their abysmal lack of balance.  Because, as in life…

BALANCE IS KEY

As most U.S. network shows on the big four (ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) last for 22-24 episodes, balance is crucial.  Balance between what?

Balance between the done-in-one and overarching story (or mythology) episodes.  They must function and inform one another.  Despite having an overarching plot (House wants to be a better human), HOUSE is not a mythology-driven show.  It’s a character-driven show, with a winning formula (a fascinating character in a difficult situation;  in this case, a medical mystery that pushes the boundaries of his intellect), and an excellent supporting cast (more or less).

HUMAN TARGET is not a mythology-driven show, though it does have an overarching plot.  In this case, it’s the slow revelation of Chance’s (Mark Valley) past, and why that past is after him.  Otherwise, it again fulfills my criteria for watching: fascinating people (the lead triumvirate of Mark Valley, Chi McBride, and Jackie Earl Haley)  in difficult situations – though with a healthy and fun dosage of boys-with-toys machismo and a caution-to-the-wind cavalier attitude.

FRINGE, on the other hand, is a mythology-driven show in the vein of everything else Abrams does.  I’ve been particularly hard on FRINGE this season, but I’ve primarily aimed my critical switchblade towards the showrunners (for the first half – atrocious, badly-written dreck) and the network (for the second – showrunners got their mojo back, but horrifying programming decisions did nothing to garner my love).

I will confess to nearly jumping ship on FRINGE.  However, the first criteria chimed in: It is filled with characters I want to watch.  And I had faith that it would get better.

Balance, unfortunately, is often not synonymous with American television programming.  So far, FRINGE has suffered the most from this disease.  It’s a deadly one.  It’s called…

FLUFFFORFLUFF’SSAKEITUS (Fluff•for•Fluff’s•Sake•Itus)

With a mythology-driven show like FRINGE , the 22-24 episode season doesn’t work.  This season proved it beyond a reasonable doubt, in no small part to the absolutely shoddy programming.  Some episodes moved the main plot forward. Stop. Done-in-one freak of the week.  Myth. Stop. Freak.  Stop.  Three week break. Myth. Freak. Freak. Freak. Four week break.  Ad naseum.

This is no doubt due to Fox’s inability to effectively market the show to anyone.  It wants a big hit on its hands, so it markets to everyone.  Bring in people, keep long-time fans happy.  Pick one.  By marketing to everyone, you market to no one.

The fix I have long proposed (well, since September, anyhow) is that ALL American television should follow the Euro/British model (10-12 episode series/seasons/volumes).  In the US, USA, TNT, FX, AMC, HBO, etc. etc. have found great success with this formula.  It needs to be applied to all television.  It’s the first step towards curing the Flufforfluff’ssakeitus that plagues network programming.

And what is the ubiquitous issue?

THE DONE-IN-ONE.

American programming is a hodge-podge between myth and done-in-one, a balance never being found.

At its best, the done-in-one can both move the story forward and be accessible.  The last new episode of HOUSE, “5 to 9,”  is one of the best examples of this.  It didn’t necessarily move the overarching HOUSE story forward (be a nice guy, House), but it did offer a new perspective on a tried and true formula.  Told from romantic foil and hospital administrator Lisa Cuddy’s perspective, it was a “day in the life of,” with the HOUSE formula sneaking in once in awhile.  It was a highly effective episode (made even moreso by the fantastic performance by Lisa Edelstein as Cuddy), and is, in my mind, a template for how the done-in-one should be… done.

On the other hand, you have FRINGE.  While there have been some very good done-in-ones (several in fact, especially recently) that did move the story forward ever so-slightly, it came across as merely padding to fulfill a season order.  One of my last reviews (before the eight-week break) was actually dedicated to ripping apart the programming decisions of the season (which I will leave alone for now – just go have a read of the review (assault?) if you want to know more).

Bottom line – the done-in-one must contain the following: a fascinating story with a unique perspective that illuminates and expands on the mythology and forward motion presented in the episodes surrounding it.  If it doesn’t, it’s filler, and I’m not pleased or interested.

THE GOOD. THE MEH. THE GAH.

That I’ve pontificated on my review process for nearly 1500 words now is surprising to me.  Discussing methods is something that I’ve never been good at.  In fact, I tend to avoid discussing them, simply because I don’t think about it that much.  My method for critical discourse:

If it’s good, I like it. If it sucks, I don’t.

Obviously, there’s more to it than that.  I suppose one could ask “why do I review shows, films, etc.?”  Simple.  Because I like to.  I like exploring things from people who get paid to make things because it makes me a better creative on my road to getting paid to make things.

In some cases, I learn by seeing what they do right.  In most cases, I learn by what they do wrong.   Either way, I apply, and move on.

At the end of the day, it comes down to my biggest pet peeve.  There is nothing I hate more than wasted potential.  When I see it in my everyday life, I make a point to do any little thing I can to help people gain the confidence to tap into their potential.  When I see television shows, films, comics, etc. that aren’t living up to their potential, I pounce.  Not that it matters – I’m under no illusion that my critiques and reviews have any bearing whatsoever.  It’s the thought that counts.

When I see shows that I adore – with fascinating characters in difficult situations – flounder and flop from week to week, I get riled up.  When I see poor business and marketing decisions that impact the showrunners’ abilities to run their show, or realize the show’s full potential, I get riled up.

Each review is my little way of being part of a solution to an epidemic of bland television.  If, in some small way, my reviews can help potential be realized, maybe through turning other people onto the show, or by giving them a different lens through which to view it – a critical one – then I’ll consider myself happy.

Otherwise, I’ll give my reviews, on my own three-point grading system (Good, Meh, GAH!), a GAH!

Until next we meet…

THE GOOD: Television that features two main pieces: Fascinating people in difficult situations.

THE MEH: When one of the two is out of balance.

THE GAH: When potential is squandered by poor storytelling, marketing, and programming.

Tyler Weaver is a writer and filmmaker.  You can connect with Tyler on Twitter and Facebook

What happens when a network affiliate goes rogue and decides to air a college basketball game instead of LOST? Well it ain’t pretty. The following announcement appeared on WWAY-TV’s website under “Programming Notes”.  The station is an ABC Affiliate in Wilmington, North Carolina.

We will be airing an ACC game Tuesday night from 9:00 pm – 11:00 pm (UNC  vs. Georgia Tech)
Lost will air at 1:06 am Tuesday Night / Wednesday Morning.
The Forgotten will air at 2:06 am.
You can also watch these shows Wednesday via the ABC Video Player – which is on the top right side of www.wwaytv3.com.

Clearly the station has lost their way because the post received a flurry of negative comments, like the one listed below.

Losers instead of Lost
Submitted by BooHoo (not verified) on 16 February 2010 – 1:00pm.

I’m a life-long Carolina fan and I know a lame season when I see it. I’ve spent five years working on the Lost puzzle and now, here at the end, you’re going to jerk true-hearted ABC programming fans around like this?
If I can see it online tomorrow then I will start watching whatever is left that I like on ABC that way.
It’s been real……

Based on the date of the announcement it appears this was a last minute decision. Since local affiliates rely on ad dollars, I’m curious if the station sold ads during that time slot for the highly rated LOST and then subbed in the basketball game? If they did, then they’ll have more than irate viewers to contend with.

A PSA (public service announcement) is an advertisement to the public and its purpose is to modify the public’s opinion about a particular subject.

Ad Agency’s have been producing pro bono PSA’s for decades and I wondered if they had any effect on the subjects they featured, so I did a little digging.  According to the Ad Council of America many of their most famous campaigns have actually gotten results.

Since 1944 Smokey The Bear has been telling us “Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires.”  The campaign was developed to educate the public at a time when accidents accounted for nine out of ten forest fires.  It’s really not hard to imagine, think back to the “Mad Men” episode featuring the Draper family picnic – did your mouth fall open when you witnessed the family dump their trash on the grass and drive off?  The early 40’s and 50’s weren’t known for being environmentally conscious.  Many campers lit cigarettes and burned campfires without ensuring the match or fire was completely out before walking away.  Something had to be done and this PSA apparently had an effect.   As the Ad Council’s longest running campaign, it has reduced the number of acres lost annually from 22 million to 4 million

Sometimes “Happily Ever After” only exists in fairy tales. Domestic violence is a late 20th century term, before that it was known as “being in an abusive marriage.” It wasn’t until the 80’s and 90’s that filmmakers and television producers put a spotlight on this crime in films such as “Bastard out of Carolina,” “Crimes of the Heart” and TV movies like “Burning Bed.” Prior to that, it wasn’t openly talked about, and a woman didn’t have many options.

In 1994, The Ad Council and The Family Violence Prevention Fund partnered to launch the Domestic Violence Prevention campaign. According to their reports, between 1995 and 1996, 34,000 calls were made to the campaign’s toll-free hotline. The campaign shed light on the abuse and made it socially unacceptable, encouraging people to call if they knew of an abusive situation.

The most recent PSA centers on childhood obesity and is part of the “Let’s Move!” initiative developed by First Lady Michelle Obama.

Childhood obesity is an alarming situation. Recently, I produced an episode for “Real Savvy Moms” on the subject and the statistics are astounding. Over 25.5 million children in the U.S. are obese, and many of those children at age 10 are showing signs of heart disease and diabetes. The contributing factors are poor diet and lack of exercise. Instead of eating apples and raisins for snacks, our kids are eating ring dings and throwing back coca-colas. Their daily exercise consists of manipulating one’s thumbs around an X Box or surfing the web. I think this campaign is both timely and relevant. Time will tell if this campaign has an impact.

Is there a PSA that had an impact on you?

MTV revolutionized the music video.  As I’ve said before, many of my friends began their careers at this upstart network devoted to music 24/7.  They not only revolutionized the definition of a niche cable network, they revolutionized the look with their logo.  The logo designed by Frank Olinsky and his team was commissioned by Fred Seibert. Fred was MTV’s first creative director; he was also the President of Hannah-Barbera Cartoons, and the creator of NextNewNetworks.

I had the pleasure of working with Fred when I was producing for the first over the air subscription based TV network. He developed the logo, promotion and the marketing.  Those were the heady days of cable television when anything was possible, because most of what we were producing hadn’t been seen before.  That’s exactly how the MTV logo was viewed.  A logo that had the ability to change with the seasons, a mood, an emotion or a thought, a logo that was flexible but didn’t lose its identity.  The chunky “M” couldn’t be mistaken for any other network.  The logo also contained the words ‘music television’ as the tag line – after all that’s exactly what the network was – all music all the time.  But that was then, and this is now and if you can find a music video on MTV today, you’re either working the night shift or you rise before the sun does. For the past ten years the network has moved away from music to produce original programming that features real people.  Their programming has been devoid of music and now their 30 year old logo has undergone a change.  They’ve removed the tag line ‘music television’.

While the actual programming for the past ten years has been stripped of music videos – with the logo change, it’s official.  No more music in MTV.

Their cup runneth over
If you’re familiar with the TV show “Fringe” or the film “Star Trek”, then you’re probably familiar with writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.  They’re launching their own TV production company under the 20th Century Fox umbrella.   No strangers to tight production deadlines, in November 2007 the duo was working on finishing four movies simultaneously: “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “Star Trek,” which they co-wrote, and “Eagle Eye” and “The Proposal,” the first films developed through their company that they produced. Add to that the “Fringe” pilot, which they were shepherding with co-creator J.J. Abrams at the same time.

So – what can we learn from this?  Give the job to a busy person – they always seem to get it done.

Elevator going down
What happens when the CEO of a company disguises himself as an average Joe and works alongside his blue collar employees?  You’re about to find out, when “Undercover Boss” makes its debut on CBS immediately following the Super Bowl this Sunday.  The new one hour reality series premieres with Waste Management, Inc.’s CEO, Larry O’Donnell as he sorts trash, cleans portable outhouses, and picks up stray papers around a landfill.

Will this be CBS’s next “Survivor”?  Depends on how many viewers will identify with CEO’s undercover.

Public Policy Debate Gets a Makeover
This month PBS will debut “Two-Way Street”, a single-topic, hour long debate show focusing on public policy.  There are several reasons it promises to be different from all other Sunday morning ‘debate’ shows.  First, it will be an actual debate.  Second, it will focus on one topic for the entire hour.  I think the most unique aspect will be the interaction between the Host, Bob Bowdon , the pundits, the studio audience and viewers at home, who will be able to interact live via the internet.  It promises to be a lively discussion.

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.

When the movie “FAME “was released, I was thrilled; it was about my alma mater  The High School of Performing Arts.  I loved high school and the film reflected much of the drama, angst, craziness and bold creativity I experienced as a teenager.  When they later made it into a TV show – I was on my couch watching.  Since then, there really hasn’t been a musical TV show that worked until “Glee”.    I’m not saying they didn’t produce them, I’m just saying they didn’t work.

Steven Bochco achieved great success when he created “Hill Street Blues” and “LA Law”.  Both shows helped reinvent the one hour drama with fast cutting, unique story lines and bizarre characters.  Mr. Bochco was a ground breaker.  And with most creatives that take chances there are those times when what they create doesn’t work.  That was the case with his short lived musical/cop/drama show.  It’s even hard to write that into a sentence.  The show “Cop Rock” was a resounding failure.  Didn’t last but minutes on television.  The premise – highway patrol men meet the Broadway musical.  It was produced the way a stage musical is produced  – once the ‘cop action’ was complete, the actors would stop to sing and dance.  Viewers just couldn’t wrap their arms around this let alone give it their time.For example, one scene in a courtroom had the jury break into song, proclaiming “He’s Guilty” in Gospel style. Another episode had a lineup of Hispanic suspects proclaim in song “We’re the local color with the coppertone skin / And you treat us like we’re guilty of some terrible sin.”

So  what makes “Cop Rock” such a resounding failure and “Glee” not only a Golden Globe Winner, but a fan favorite, and the recipient of  2 Gold Record Albums from the series?.  For one, they’re not superimposing a premise on top of a style.  Cops don’t typically break out in song and dance unless they’re at a wedding.  However, with “Glee”, the premise is a high school glee club, there’s no superimposing of premises on top of premises.  Secondly, Glee doesn’t take itself seriously – that’s obvious by the characters and their very witty dialogue.  And finally, they sing songs we all know.  If you’re going to go out on a limb, there has to be something familiar an audience can grab onto.  And there’s nothing more familiar or embracing than a song you know and love.  When Will, the teacher breaks out into song while trying to explain a situation, we’re not jerked out  of the show – it makes sense because as an audience we’ve bought into the style.  Besides, Will is cute, and he can sing and shake his booty at the same time.

The results are in the numbers.  They have an audience, they’re selling albums and over 4 million songs  from the series have been downloaded.  It would appear that musical television works, as long as the premise doesn’t jerk the audience out of the story.

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

If you’ve ever worked on a clip show, or any show that requires lots and lots of clips from movies or television you know the search can be painfully slow and expensive.

When producing a clip based show, you have ideas of what clips would work but unless you actually see the footage in the rough cut, it’s a gamble as to whether or not they will work in your story.  Typically, you’ll have your researcher, associate producer, or production assistant contact the studios to inquire if the footage is available for licensing, send a letter of intent and then pay for a screener.  The screener will usually arrive within a day or a week depending on how many other orders the one studio person assigned to rights and clearances has to fill.  If you’re in a hurry, be prepared to plead with said studio person on the phone hoping he or she will understand that your project is more important than any other order.

Meanwhile, back at the production offices, the producer and the editor are ‘pacing’ the edit room wondering where the heck the footage is because the story their telling depends on whether the footage will work, and of course they won’t know that until they see it.  When the screener finally arrives, it’s got the biggest visual time code embedded into the clip to ensure you don’t ‘steal’ the footage.  The clip from the screener won’t be replaced with clean footage until everyone has signed off on the rough cut, and if your delivery deadline is approaching you may just be biting the last of your finger nails waiting for the clean footage.  It takes time to get a clean copy of the footage, rights have to negotiated with the studio and with each actor that appears in the clip, contracts will need to be signed and in some cases the studio will have to pull the original footage out of a vault just to get a print made and duplicated onto a format you need.

As you can see, in a production if you’re using clips you practically need a department devoted to securing clips and obtaining the rights and clearances. That’s why I was happily surprised to see that Paramount Pictures has decided to make the process easier.  I don’t believe it was out of sense of altruism, but rather due to declining DVD sales and poor box office revenues. I’m sure someone said, “Hey we’ve got a gold mine in the basement vaults, let’s make the process easier and make some money.”

By logging onto ParamountClips.com, you can search for the exact clip you want with the licensing parameters you need.  Once you’ve located the clip, press the checkout button and you’re done. Paramount will electronically deliver the selection in the format and resolution desired. Most scenes are available in multiple languages.

I love when companies use technology to make the process easier.

What kind of technology makes your production work easier?

When it comes to pioneers in cable television MTV sits at the head of the wagon train.  They launched a network in an era when many of my dear friends were just beginning their TV careers; and like my friends who helped MTV blaze the trail, the network was young, ambitious, and created something brand new  – a niche network devoted entirely to music videos.  They put the uber in cool.  Many said they were crazy, “A channel just for music videos? It will never last.” And they were right, it didn’t.  While they had a good long run featuring only music videos eventually they had to change their programming to stay relevant. So the uber cool network changed with the times and created one of the first Reality TV shows, “The Real World.” Still airing on the network today, it debuted in 1992 and is one of the longest running shows on MTV.  The plot: A group of strangers live together in a house as we watch their every move.  Voyeurism just didn’t get any better.  And apparently neither did MTV’s reality slate.  Times may change but when you’ve got a successful 18 year old ‘formula’ you continue to use it, even if that formula morphs into the “Jersey Shore”…

This new reality show features eight people living in a summer rental in, where else,  the Jersey Shore.  The plot: A group of strangers live together as we watch what happens. I watched. Here’s what happened. The guys (and guys is the appropriate noun) in the house spend much of their time getting tans, however they clearly have ‘sandphobia’.  Why else would they choose to achieve that golden bronze look with daily visits to their local tanning salon when they happen to be blocks away from the beach?  I can only assume they’d prefer not to have sand in their shorts.  They also take daily trips to the laundry.  Now this one puzzled me.  If you don’t have small children, there’s really no need for a daily trip to the Laundromat, unless of course you simply don’t have enough underwear to last the whole week.  Here’s a tip, cut back on your tanning treatments and take a trip to the local WalMart and buy some briefs. In addition to laundry and tanning there’s the daily work out – they’re young and their physiques need to be maintained for the nightly club hopping and hook up sessions.  On the other hand we have the women and they are a whole ‘nother taxation on one’s mental facilities.  In addition to the back stabbing, whining and drinking, there’s enough bitch slapping and in your face altercations to stand up and say, “Oh no you didn’t!”  It’s truly remarkable that these people do what they do AND KNOW that their every move is being filmed.

After 18 years this Reality TV plot device seems to be working for MTV.  They were badly slipping in the ratings but Jersey Shore seems to be pulling them out of the slump and garnering some solid numbers with over 3 million people watching weekly. After watching several episodes I must admit to some surprise, but  I suppose it’s like that pimple on your face, you just can’t stop picking at it.

If you haven’t seen the show, I dare you, no I double dare you– go ahead visit their website and try out a few episodes.  Me, I’ve seen enough, it’s definitely time for a new Reality TV plot device.

MTV recently hired David Janollari as the executive VP of scripted development.  Mr. Janollari is the former WB Entertaiment President where he oversaw the development and launch of “Supernatural” and “Beauty and the Geek.”  I’m looking forward to watching the new programming direction of the network under his helm.