Film Finance Conferences, or How to Spend $175 to Learn in an Auditorium What is Ubiquitously Available On the Internet for Free

Right now... at this very moment... there are literally dozens of Film Finance Conferences being advertised to indie film communities. Many of these Film Finance Conferences charge hundreds of dollars for admission. Some operate under the venerable guise of the non-profit. One such conference — currently being promoted in several Indie Film Groups on LinkedIn — makes such outrageous claims it is clear the organizers primary goal is to separate young filmmakers from their cash.

Many Film Finance Conferences market themselves to filmmakers as a way to: Get Your Project in Front of Investors, Financiers, and Producers Who Can Get Your Project Made!! Few legitimately offer such opportunity. Fewer still provide any real world, practical, and actionable advice for indie filmmakers on how to finance their feature.

At one conference I attended a panelist billed as "an entertainment attorney who had negotiated several high profile projects," was to speak on the following topic: How the New Financial Climate Affects Fund-Raising for Film.

His wisdom to the filmmakers in attendance...? He read a printed list of film financing methods that included Gap, Supergap, Debt, Pre-sales, and Negative Pickups. Not one word on topic. Not one word about what made the deals he allegedly negotiated happen. Just a list of financing options that is available for free on dozens of sites across the web. He also managed to mention 5 times how vital it was for filmmakers to consult with an experienced entertainment attorney. Several dozen of his business cards were fanned out in front of him on the table.

Another panelist billed as "an expert on business plans who had secured millions of dollars of financing," was supposed to talk about what a good business plan should include, show examples, and explain the process. Instead he meandered across a panoply of topics including thoughts on restaurants and political candidates. His greatest moment of insight was to mention that tax incentives are very helpful to filmmakers.

Another speaker, when asked about how to raise money to make your film, suggested selling T-shirts.

All the while the "moderator," sat slumped in his chair without asking a single question or asking the speakers to clarify or go into more detail.

So are Film Finance Conferences worth the time and money? Can indie filmmakers walk away with solid ideas on how to get their films financed and get their projects in front of financiers and producers who can get their films made? Sadly, the answer is no — don't expect to ever get in front of people with money to invest.

Most Film Finance Conferences are designed to fill the pockets of the organizer by emptying yours... get you to purchase the products or services of the presenters... or outright scams.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Inside In Filmmaking

Over the years, Hollywood – like any other industry – has sought to minimize risk and maximize return so they can continue in business. They have done this by creating a star-driven, blockbuster, and marketing centric industry.

This made sense at first as (conspicuous) consumers love to hear about the glamorous world of stars, and getting the word out about a film is, after all, a necessity to drive ticket sales. However, like many things that were created for a specific purpose, this model has become corrupted over time.

This was evidenced most recently in the banal, Couples Retreat. In the making-of vignette shown on HBO, the stars and producers tell us how they chose the logistically complex, expensive location of Bora Bora in French Polynesia so the film “…would provide a sense of place and greater authenticity for the audience.” Really?

As a producer I am extremely sensitive to every element that goes into making a film from locations to wardrobe to the food we serve the hard working cast and crew. Every detail matters. But choosing Bora Bora as a location had nothing to do with the audience — a dozen equally beautiful and less costly locations could have been selected — and everything to do with providing a playground for the cast and producers. And there lies the problem.

In so many cases filmmakers — and not just Hollywood filmmakers, though they are often the most egregious — create their films from the inside, for the inside. A model that once helped promote the glamor of cinema has mutated into a virtual Panopticon, where the audience is studied by unseen guards from a central tower, placed in demographic cells, and then delivered films made to support the system, rather than entertain the audience.

What the producers should have done in the making-of vignette on HBO, is discuss how they eschewed a shoot in Bora Bora so they could craft a smart script and a comedy worth an $8 - $13 ticket.

Instead the disingenuous producers gave themselves an all expense paid, ten* week vacation on a tropical island, while subjecting the audience to a longer, more expensive retread of the sitcom they saw on Tuesday night. You know, the one where the sophomoric, wacky guys, do those sophomoric, wacky things that frustrate their too attractive wives, who then act all put upon, and do those supposedly more responsible, but equally wacky things that befuddle the sophomoric, wacky guys.

*Ten week shooting schedule is an estimate
www.flatplanetfilms.com

Bible Fragment - From Wasteland

Journal Entry #17

I was asked today if I believe angels exist.

It was the fat man again. Looking down at me in the way only a man convinced of his own intellectual superiority can look down on a taller man. He asked in that same condescending tone, without really expecting a reply.

Today I decided to give him one.

I stepped momentarily away from the world around us and spoke of angels; what they stood for, or rather, the meanings human beings ascribe to them. Words floated forward such as goodness, and light. Generic, unworkable concepts that tell us little of substance.

I spoke of magic and the supernatural — where basically anything can occur without reason or repercussion. I spoke of physics and the laws of nature — for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I spoke of duality, and of Lucifer — a fallen angel from the Christian pantheon and wondered: if one angel could fall, why not many?

As I watched the human beings swirl around us, oblivious to all but their own self interest, I verbalized the unasked question. If angels exist, then must not their opposite also exist? If there are things of light, then somewhere, must there not also be things of darkness? We recognize them perhaps as nothing more than a wisp of a feeling, but no matter how superior we feel, how advanced we become, this ancient feeling persists.

As adults we have become logical and pragmatic; we rationalize and compartmentalize. We have lost the flexibility of our young minds, and realize that if confronted by these dark things our minds would snap.

It's not the knife we fear, but the thought of the knife. It's not the odd, quiet neighbor that disturbs us, but the thought of what he may be doing in the basement of the house he's never invited us in to see. And in those thoughts, we wonder what it would mean to our perception of reality if one day, when we awoke, we found ourselves lying naked, bound and gagged in that basement, with our odd, quiet neighbor staring down at us. So we put those thoughts away.

It's why most of us cannot look at a person in a wheelchair, or stand to be near the infirm, and the insane — to do so brings us nearer those locked rooms in our minds. It's why we conform and consume, and cling to religions that assure us we are among those chosen to ascend. If people can rationalize something, then they can convince themselves they no longer need fear that something.

And yet that ancient whisper remains.

I was asked today if I believe angels exist. Stepping back into the world I turned to my questioner and asked a question of my own. Knowing what I just told you could be true — wouldn't it be best if they didn't?

As the pious, superiority slowly vanished from his face, he mumbled something about an appointment, and with a backward glance turned, and walked quickly away.

And as he disappeared into the crowd — plump thighs chafing with each hurried step — a thought came to me and I smiled. Perhaps I'll pay him a visit and put my theory to the test. I know where he lives.


From Jacob's Journal in Wasteland
Copyrighted material

Spending the Money - How to Get it Right

It’s a problem familiar to every independent producer - how to allocate limited resources so they have the greatest impact to the quality of the project.

No matter the budget, producers are often faced with the reality of fewer resources than hoped for. To create outstanding content, they must therefore concentrate on multiplying the value of the resources they have. Knowing how to do this, and when to spend the money to best effect is often difficult, but there are two factors we can focus on that are of disproportionate influence. These are time, and performance gain.

Time is the most important resource producers must manage. When deciding how to spend money, or allocate resources, it’s often the number one consideration. Spending money in ways that save time often translate to significant gains in quality and performance. The opposite also holds true – if the money being spent isn't creating incremental time gains, it almost certainly could be better spent in other areas.

Performance gain is the incremental improvement received with each dollar spent. The issue here is one of scale. How much better will the project be by spending a dollar in one area (locations, equipment, OT, etc.), as opposed to spending the same dollar somewhere else? Will spending that dollar create a better experience for the audience and stakeholders?

Making these decisions is as much an art as a science, but there is a simple rule of thumb that can help. When making these types of decisions I often use a very simple graph to help put things into perspective. On the X-axis is Time/Performance Gain, on the Y-axis is Resource Input (money, equipment, personnel). To illustrate I'll give an example.

On Welcome To Academia, we were shooting a very difficult scene at night, and approaching overtime, when the DP informed us we had a dead pixel on the camera. The choice was fix the pixel on set using the camera's software interface, or continue shooting and fix the dead pixel in post. Both alternatives had pros and cons.

Fixing the problem on set would take approximate 30 minutes while the crew stood idle and the clock ticked. Fixing it in post would allow us to keep shooting, but would require painting the affected area frame by frame. Depending on the action and length of the scenes, this could take a great deal of time. There was also the consideration of how a known problem with the footage would impact the cast and crew (on set this matters). So what was the better option?

When prepping the show, my producing partner,  Laura Cartwright, and I discussed this eventuality with our post house, and the camera techs at CSC in New York. We knew the rough cost-per-hour of fixing a dead pixel in post (it is impossible to determine exact time and costs until the footage is seen), and knew the precise cost of having our crew sit idle for 30 minutes, and the cost of each 30 minute period of OT. We decided to fix the camera on set.

On the surface it may seem as though idling the production would be the less efficient choice, but when all the variables were considered that was not the case.

As the chart at left shows, fixing the problem on set - under the circumstances we were in - was overwhelmingly the best choice. In a bad situation it made the best use of our resources because it gave us the highest time gain with the lowest resource investment.

It also gave us a chance to boost morale. While the camera department worked on the fix, the director rehearsed the last shots, and our wonderful craft service team whipped up some smoothies that cooled us down, and gumbo that restored our energy. 30 minutes later we were rolling cameras. Ultimately the scene looked phenomenal, and we made our day.

Deciding how to spend money comes down to deciding what actions consume the greatest amount of resources, while returning the smallest quality and performance gain. And conversely deciding which actions consume the least amount of resources, while returning the highest quality and performance gain.

Not easy choices, but when framed this way, producers can see beyond the stress of the moment to the bigger picture, and gain insight into how to direct resources so they make the greatest impact to the project, the team, the stakeholders, and ultimately the audience.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Connecting Content and Audience

As anyone who follows the media business (whether music, movies, publishing or TV) knows, they run on the premise that those in charge can predict the preferences of millions of individual people, and somehow create content that maximizes hits and minimizes flops. It is a business in which the top decision makers are paid extraordinary sums to provide those predictions about what the masses next want to see, hear, and read. In most cases those expensive predictions appear no better than guesses.

A growing body of research suggests that reliably predicting hits is impossible no matter how high up the totem pole someone is, or how much market research they have available. ^[1,2] And yet the process continues. Media executives make bets on future hits based on past hits, which is like making bets the next coin toss will come up heads because the previous one did.

Egregious examples of missed calls include the 8 publishers who passed on the Harry Potter novels; the studio that greenlit Land of the Lost; the networks that passed on Battle Star Galactica, and the record companies that blew off the Beatles. The list goes on, and what it tells us is this: when it comes to predicting what will succeed and fail in the media marketplace, William Goldman had it right, nobody knows anything.

And yet consumption of media continues to grow. A recent comScore study showed U.S. audiences watched more than 14.5 billion online videos in March of this year, up from 11.5 billion a year earlier. These numbers are staggering, and provide studios, networks, filmmakers, marketers, and content creators of all kinds an amazing opportunity. But what is it people are watching? What is it they are responding to and can that translate to other platforms?

In his excellent White Paper titled Distributed Influence: Quantifying the Impact of Social Media, Jonny Bentwood discusses what he calls the Arc of Influence, a model showing how topics spread, and influence causes action among different groups - those he calls influencers (people who lead the crowd) and influence-ables (people in their personal networks who follow their lead).

For influencers the Arc of Influence is:
1] Attention
How do influencers grab a user’s attention?
2] Engage
How does the influencer engage with the audience? Is it in an informative, entertaining, or challenging way?
3] Influence Is the content personal and relevant. i.e. Does it demonstrate need + context + timeliness?
4] Action Does the influencer inspire the individual to act?

For the influence-ables the Arc of Influence is:
1] Interest
The consumer identifies a need or interest in information
2] Fulfillment
The consumer seeks fulfillment from what they hope are credible sources (information, entertainment)
3] Review
The consumer evaluates the content provided
4] Action
The consumer forms or modifies their opinion and acts accordingly.

The chart below shows Bentwood's model graphically.

Viewed this way we see that while the context between the two groups is different, the end goal is unified. Influence isn't based on being predictive, it's based on delivering information that inspires action.

If we apply these same rules to the creation of content - replacing influencer with content creator, and influence-able with audience — we can draw some clear inferences. Content created to satisfy the internal goals of the creators has no intrinsic value. Content only has value when it appeals and has meaning to the macro environment viewing the content. 

To put it in the terms of the chart above, content creators must align their internal goal to 'grab the viewer's attention,' with the individual's interest; the internal goal to 'engage the viewer,' must align with the individual's goal to view satisfying content; the internal goal to 'influence behavior,' must pass the individual's evaluation of being credible, authentic and entertaining. In other words, , content succeeds when it satisfies the one person with the power to make or break it - the audience.
If the ultimate goal of a network program, online video or motion picture is to influence an audience (it is, even if the goal is to make us laugh), we must remember that "influence is only influence when it motivates people to act."^[1] To create that kind of result content creators must rethink how their content is made and who it is truly made for. They must be less concerned with predictions and attempts to recycle past successes - the media world moves far to quickly for that - and more concerned with creating quality content that engages passionately with audiences.

This doesn't mean we should ignore internal goals, we can't. It means only that we should pay more attention to the goals, interests, and motivations of the audience the content is being creating for, and remember the two most fundamental tenets of media...

- The audience is the client
- The individual is the audience

1. Bentwood, Jonny. Distributed Influence: Quantifying the Impact of Social Media. Edelman, 2008.
2. Mlodinow, Leonard. The Drunkard's Walk. Pantheon Books, 2006.
3. Kim, W. Chan, and Mauborgne, Renee. Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Harvard Business School Press, 2005.
4. Horn, John.Summer Movie Season Cooling Off. LA Times, 2009.




www.flatplanetfilms.com

A Story about Storytelling

The last several weeks I have been thinking about storytelling. This isn't difficult in NYC because there are stories unfolding before us - and behind us, below us, and above us — everywhere we go. They begin and end on buses and subways, in the streets and in the parks, in cabs, pubs, diners, and even Upper East Side high rises.

Most of the time we miss these stories because we walk the streets with our mask of disinterest set firmly in place (If you are a New Yorker, you know what I mean). Recently however, I decided to remove my mask. I decided to look around as I wandered the City and even make eye contact with people! [yes, this is actually legal in NYC].

What first struck me was the sheer number of stories being told. Everyone, it seemed, was telling a story — even those trying their hardest not to tell a thing.

The vast majority of these stories seemed of interest only to the person telling it (or screaming/ranting/proselytizing it as the case may be). These stories either didn't attract attention at all, or attracted attention just long enough for us to realize the need to move quickly away.

Other stories attracted the attention of small groups, but failed to grasp the interest of the majority of people. The people telling these stories sometimes got our attention with gimmicks - jumping up on mailboxes, or playing guitar in their underwear — but the attention of those gathered quickly waned when the surface of the story failed to achieve any depth.

And then there were the stories we simply couldn't ignore. These very rare stories did more than just attract attention, they actually stopped dozens, and even hundreds of people in their tracks, who became emotionally involved and truly invested in the outcome. These stories shared a remarkable simplicity, and yet created boundless wonder and empathy. What these stories did was connect us to the one thing we all share - our humanity.

Later, tired from my wanderings, I stopped into a pub famous for their Guinness pours. I thought about how good that beer was going to taste, and about how cute the bartender was (please don't say anything to her, I am feigning disinterest so she'll be attracted to me).

As my Guinness settled I put words to something we all subconsciously know about stories, but seem to forget in the quest to over-hype audiences into the theater.

Tell a poor story and find yourself alone.
Tell a good story and find yourself some friends.
Tell a great story and find yourself an audience.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Can a film end a disease?

Several weeks ago a wonderful person named Claire Collier passed away from ALS.

If you're not aware, ALS - often referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease - is a nuero-degenerative disease that robs people of the ability to speak, move, and care for themselves. It is at once agonizingly slow, taking years to completely pilfer a person's life, and blisteringly fast. Yet as horrible as the physical effects are, there is more to it.

Ask any person with ALS, and they will tell you one of the most frustrating things they endure is people seem to define them strictly by their disease.

In a recent conversation, a lawyer living with ALS explained: “People sometimes walk up to my wheelchair and without even looking at me will ask my nurse’s aide how I’m doing. They proceed to have a conversation about me as if I weren’t there… as if I didn’t really exist.”

ALS is a thief, but what it cannot do is rob people of their personality. It doesn't steal their love of friends and family, their desire to hug their kids, have a drink, tell a joke, scratch an itch, watch a ballgame or a movie, play poker, or be seen, heard and involved.

Claire was tireless, outgoing and funny. It was impossible not to feel welcome in her presence. She met with Senators to advocate for patient's rights, and toasted anyone who fought the fight. When she got too weak to hold a glass of wine she had her friends drop a straw in her glass.

Losing people like Claire to this disease is unacceptable, so we're doing something about it. The idea is called Project Right Angle and it's based on a fundamental insight that others seem to have missed.

Project Right Angle is a non-profit initiative being founded to raise awareness and enlighten public perception towards people living with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) and Muscular Dystrophy. It was founded on the notion that storytelling can do more than entertain -- it can inspire, transform and motivate action.

Our goal is to bring ALS research to the forefront of the public's attention by changing the paradigm by which messages are made, delivered and most importantly, received. We will do this through short, story-driven films about people with ALS distributed via the internet.

Because these short films (none longer than 3 minutes), tell stories about people instead of a disease, they are often humorous, sometimes irreverent, and always inspiring -- such as the young woman who maneuvers her wheelchair through a crowded mall looking for a bargain, but instead finds a most unlikely friend.

We've already got a dozen scripts ready to go, and a team of filmmakers ready to shoot. We're raising money to get this started right now. If you have something to say, or if you wish to help out financially, drop us a note. The official PRA web site will be launching soon, but in the mean time we can be reached at info@flatplanetfilms.com.

So, about the title of this post: Can a film end a disease? Unfortunately no. But the people who watch, share, and create the films can, and that's the point. We'll see you on set.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Hard Questions & Ruthless Answers

At the core of every successful production, from multi-million dollar feature films to a viral videos streamed to the web, are the same fundamentals of story, strategy, scope, execution and impact. At the core of every savvy producer is an understanding of the relationships among these fundamentals, between them and around them.

When starting a new project the questions a producer asks are vital:

- What is the story we wish to tell?
- How will we tell it?
- Who is the audience?
- Why will these people respond?
- How will we reach them?
- What resources do we have available?
- How do we best use those scares resources?
- Who do we need on the team to make it happen?

Of equal or greater importance is the accuracy of our answers, and how we look at the process. This is where most productions break down.

Many producers, filmmakers, and financiers either fail to ask these questions at all, ask too late or fool themselves with their answers. They look at the each phase of a project (development, pre-production, production, post-production and distribution), as distinct entities to be tackled each in turn and one at a time. They prepare for one phase then proceed forward to the next with little thought to how each phase fits into the larger scope of the project.

So how should filmmakers view the process? How should they proceed?

Savvy producers understand that each phase of a project is a small piece belonging to a larger ecosystem, where each phase impacts the phases both before and after. Yes, before AND after.

The process of creating filmed media does not occur along a straight line, it's concentric. The chart below illustrates what I mean.




















Looking at the process this way gives us a more global view and the ability to develop a more comprehensive plan to reach project goals. But a good plan still requires asking hard questions and being ruthless with the answers we give ourselves.

The Antagonist in Film Business Plans - Revenue Projections

I recently participated in a discussion about the values and pitfalls of business plans for Indie filmmakers trying to attract equity investors. While they can contain relevant information about the project being developed, most film business plans also contain gross misinformation.

A business plan - when done well - helps convey a sense of professionalism in the project. As one participant concisely stated:

The business plan must be dispassionate in setting out the business proposition from an investment standpoint, covering "business" topics such as project description, key attachments, whether the production is bonded, how the investor's money will be cashflowed during production, producer's track record, prospects for domestic distribution and international sales, revenue guarantees (soft money, if any), proposal for recoupment of the investment and profit participation, tax considerations for investors, historical returns for films in the genre (a range! don't just point to those hoary chestnuts, Four Weddings and a Funeral and Blair Witch Project) and, depending on what kind of document it purports to be, legal boilerplate to satisfy securities regulators.

Most of the above mentioned items must be included in any business plan and a producer should know them regardless. My issue lies mostly with revenue projections and prospects for distribution many filmmakers include. The problem I see in most projections is that they are based on the tiny pool of films that actually secure distribution each year and ignore the hundreds (thousands) that don't.

For companies and producers that have existing distribution pipelines, those estimates hold some validity. For independent filmmakers and the financiers who back their films, they do not.

Showing that ten horror films released last year averaged $15mm in domestic theatrical gross revenues (arbitrary numbers), isn't painting an accurate picture to potential investors because it ignores the dozens (hundreds?) of other horror films made in that same time frame that didn't and won't earn a dime.

Most filmmaker's create business plans that mislead investors (whether purposely or due to their own ignorance), with overly rosy projections. Then they cover their asses by tossing in a risk clause.

So OK - caveat emptor (or caveat investor as the case may be). Investors must do their due diligence. But as a producer I take full responsibility for all business and financial matters on the films I produce and misleading the people trusting me with their hard earned money is not the way I want to start a business relationship.

When preparing a business plan for a feature film one must be accurate and forthcoming with projections. As a filmmaker that is an absolute obligation. The good news is that full disclosure won't dissuade someone if they are truly interested in your project. People with the fiscal strength to finance an independent film understand the relationship between risk and reward. And savvy investors will appreciate knowing they are working with someone with integrity who is watching out for their interests.

Quote used with permission of JBV Kelly.
Mr. Kelly can be reached at filmlaw@gmail.com

In The Company of Strangers

We live in a world where new media (whether purposefully designed to or not), is more and more often experienced alone or in very small groups. We plug in our headphones, stare at the tiny screen, close the door on neighbors and surroundings, and begin our solo trip.

One form of media however, doesn't fit this mold. Unlike most media, a theatrically released motion picture is designed to be seen with dozens or even hundreds of other people. Most of whom are strangers we will never know.

Yet there is something intimate and welcoming about the shared experience of sitting with hundreds of other moviegoers. I think it is a feeling of searching for community.

I've read recently that filmed media is moving away from the theatrical model, to a more intimate delivery model. I don't buy it. Plugging into our portable media devices doesn't create a more intimate filmed entertainment experience, it creates a more isolated experience. That may serve us well for a 20 minute subway ride, but is hardly how we want to spend a Saturday night.

Going to the movies is a ritual. We hear about a new movie, gather our friends and head out for a piece of the promised adventure. We arrive at the theater, buy our snacks, rush to grab our seats and glance around to see who will be traveling along with us. We welcome these other travelers because we somehow unconsciously know that whatever emotions we feel will be magnified by the collective group.

When the lights dim, our focus shifts. We sit there in the dark, staring up at the screen and at that moment anything is possible. The excitement builds because at that moment there exists the possibility we will leave behind the world around us and become a player in the world unfolding before us.

People love going to the movies. We go in good economic times and bad. We go with friends and family and lovers. We go for a thousand different reasons and with a single hope -- to share in a great story, well told.

When a movie works, it touches us individually, transports us collectively and involves us totally. When a movie works we exist together in another place. When a movie works we sit in the dark not as strangers, but as comrades sharing love and pain and triumph.

We only become strangers again when the lights go up.

How does a film like this get made?

It's become something of a tradition during the Holidays to see a movie with my family. The movie we chose this year was the remake of the sci fi classic The Day The Earth Stood Still, staring Keanu Reeves.

After doing our part to help the economy by buying a small fortune's worth of popcorn, drinks and candy, we sat down to enjoy the show. What a disappointment. This wasn't a remake. It was, as my brother pointed out, a chunk of stale Swiss cheese. He meant of course, that the plot was full of holes -- massive black holes.

I’m not going to go into all the shortcomings of this film - this isn’t a review – but I will give one example of the reaction of the audience. In what was supposed to be the turning point of the film where Keanu Reeves’s Klaatu decides mankind is worth saving after all, the young boy in the film weeps over his father’s gravestone. His mother comforts him and they have what was supposed to have been a tender moment of shared loss and connection. What we got instead was ham-fisted melodrama (the set up here strains credulity more than a Keanu Oscar nomination).

The problem is that during this "tender" moment, the mother was supposed to be helping Klaatu stop an immense and growing cloud of alien nano-bugs devouring everything in it’s path and killing untold thousands of people. Yet the hugging continues - interminably – delaying him from taking action. It's at this moment someone in the audience gives in to the frustration and calls out to the screen: “Hello? Humanity being destroyed! Can you hug later?” That was, unfortunately, one of the few entertaining moments of the film.

Discussing the film as we drove home from the theater my mother and sister asked how a film that bad could even get made. The question was meant rhetorically, but is worth looking into, as it speaks to an industry that seems to suffer from the same defect as the financial and auto industries - a total disconnect from (lack of respect for?) their customers.

This disconnect manifests itself in the creation of content in which good storytelling (the reason people actually go to movies), has fallen light-years behind marketing and packaging. This disconnect occurs when producers see audiences as interchangeable, amorphous marketing categories, instead of individuals.

The Hollywood formula seems to be based more than ever on the assumption bigger is better; that event films are the only films that work in the marketplace. My question is when did every weekend's release become an "event?" Like most things it happened gradually. It happened because studio chiefs believe the only way to attract people to theaters is to out scream the other screamers.

The Studios now design each film to appeal to a single audience -- everyone. In this bloated model the Studios try to reduce risk by engineering films that appeal to all four marketing quadrants (men, women, young, old). They try to reduce risk by hiring top actors at top dollar, then bomb the marketplace with every marketing and publicity trick in the book (supported by tens of millions of dollars).

Four Quadrant filmmaking creates a bland product that feels pre-chewed and prepackaged. We get less story, so to compensate the Studios add ingredients to distract us -- more effects, more cuts, more sounds, more colors, more sugar and bigger toys inside the box. Unfortunately, no matter how much sugar you sprinkle on crap, it still tastes like crap.

Many industries and companies have recently discovered the consequences of insular models that place their customer's needs and wants far down the list of priorities. Hollywood seems to have missed that revelation. They churn out mediocre content then blame the economy, foreign market barriers, the internet, piracy, the customers themselves (because we look for meaningful entertainment elsewhere), when their product fails to entertain. It's a far tougher thing to look in the mirror.

How does a movie like this get made? A movie like this gets made because focus groups have replaced creativity. It gets made because marketing has supplanted storytelling. It gets made because the Studios are under the mistaken belief that distracting the audience is the same as entertaining them.

Financing's Holy Trinity

The planet is in financial crisis. And since indie filmmaking occurs on this planet, it must also be in crisis - and not just because a fractious SAG strike looms.

I've read over and over how this crisis augers the death of indie film. That to me is the surest sign indie film is not dead. That to me is the surest sign the weak are simply jumping ship. Great! Jump already and get out of the way.

Clearly we are in an exceedingly difficult climate for indie films, but that is true of almost every industry. Remember $150 a barrel oil? That was less than 5 months ago. Internet bubbles? 6 years ago. The internet is now home to some of the most robust, viable business models on the planet. Oil is in the shithouse.

The point is that fads, booms and busts come and go - that's the cycle. People love jumping on boom and bust bandwagons, but these bandwagons are rarely as wonderful or dire as the experts predict.

Right now some are cleaning up in the housing market, just as others succeeded when the internet bubble collapsed. The common denominator was an ability to stayed focused on strong foundations. That lesson holds as true in filmmaking as for any other industry or profession.

Indie filmmakers are struggling - what's new - and looking for money - what else is new? Right now money is exceedingly tight. But if you have faith then you need only look to the holy trinity and you will be saved. No, not that holy trinity, that's a far more ruthless industry and a topic for a different blog. The trinity I am referring to are the three items needed to take you down the path towards financing.

What is the holy trinity? It's as simple as it is complicated:

- Originality: compelling, story-driven content
- A-list talent: or at least proven moneymakers
- Marketability: does the story have an audience and do you have viable ideas on how to reach them?

Certainly there are many layers to each of the above. A stunning performance by a newcomer can be both talent and marketability, but some things you need to figure out on your own.

Indie filmmaking is in crisis, yet even now there is money because even now audiences are clamoring for decent content. Want some of it for your project? Stay focused on the foundations. Write something phenomenal and marketable. It's that easy... and that difficult.

Strategic Alliances

Because our business is based on artistic creation, it’s important to be out in the world watching what people are reacting to, but it’s also important to constantly examine whether the world will continue to economically reward new movies. For this reason I make almost every decision within a strategic setting.

Each time I approach production I look not only at the script, but also at the long-term viability of the script and the film it will become in the future marketplace. This does not mean I am a slave to the trends or follow the herd. That’s not only foolish, it’s impossible. What it does mean is that I try to stay attuned to what people (audiences) are responding to and why. This makes both artistic and economic sense.

After all, when we produce a new film, we're undertaking a long-term project. The process can take years and each decision can have a profound impact on the final product. Those decisions will ultimately impact the audience’s like or dislike and it always comes back to the audience. Most of the time, what audiences want are the basics of good storytelling. This is a message too many filmmakers miss.

Because films are made in stages (development, pre-production, production, post and distribution), many producers approach each of these stages as separate entities that have no relationship to each other. That is a huge mistake.

The best producers understand the connection that every element (both artistic and economic), has to every other. I have heard some producers claim that the most important stage of a film is the stage they are currently working on. That compartmentalized view not only stagnates creativity, it's fiscally irresponsible. The simple truth is that there is no single most important part of filmmaking. Each phase is equally important and forgetting that impacts both the artistic and economic.

That’s why before I begin any new project I look out into the marketplace and try to visualize who the audience is and why they will respond. I also try to structure all of my ventures as strategic partnerships, not only in terms of the relationships with production companies and distributors, but as important, in terms of management. This way I’m more certain that everyone involved in the production shares a commonality of interest and no one party dominates. How do I go about this?

First, I define the stakes and make sure each party has equal representation and equal responsibility.

Second, I try to hire people who are entrepreneurial. That's often difficult when you're evaluating expertise but on Calling it Quits we spent significant time getting the right people, people like Roxy Gillespie, Mary Margaret O’Neil and Rich Ulivella. These are people who care deeply about their craft, their department, and also about the film they are making.

Occasionally the untalented, corrupt and sometimes even criminal folks slip through. When that inevitably happens, it’s important to take immediate action. If you stop the activity as soon as you become aware of it, it sends a message and shows the talented people who actually care about what they are doing that you also care about them.

The Good Fight

Hello all, it’s good to be back! Where was I you ask…? Well, for the past couple of months I was producing a wonderful independent feature titled: Calling it Quits. I had intended to post daily about the experience, but the workload as Producer, Line Producer and Production Manager (did I mention it was low budget?), took its toll on my time. As much as I love writing, my priority was the film, so I temporarily suspended my posts.

But now I’m back and have a lot to tell you. First and foremost I wanted to thank the director Anthony Tarsitano for writing such a wonderful script. His openness, confidence, and creativity were truly inspiring. I’d also like to thank my producing partner on this film - Jeanne Suggs. Jeanne is a smart, supportive and a wonderful collaborator. Together we spent the last several months assembling an amazing team of film professionals and producing what I believe will be a wonderful film.

Producing a film at any budget is hard work, but at the budget level we worked at the hard work is multiplied several times over. This is because you don’t have enough money to hire all the help you really need so end up wearing multiple hats.

I must say the hard work paid off. The quality of the performances and the production values on this film are truly exceptional. This is directly attributable to the talent of our cast and crew. I’ve worked on bigger budget shows with larger crews, but never have I worked with better. Time and time again the crew stepped up to create sets, wardrobe, lighting and sound design that would be exceptional at 10 times the budget.

As producer on a low budget film it’s a painful fact that you will have to make compromises and will never be able to pay talent what they are actually worth. But going in we were determined to treat the cast and crew as best we could on our budget, and make sure every cent we spent ended up on the screen. I think we succeeded.

It’s an amazing thing to see all your months of planning and prep and the dozens of individuals you hired come together in a well-run, successful production. We’re now firmly into editing and scoring and we’ve been fortunate to find some equally talented people to help us here as well. I can’t wait to see the final product. I’ll keep you informed of our progress.

Market to Individuals, Reach the World - Part II

In any business, marketing and innovation are critical elements for long term success. But when a business is based in large part on artistic creation, marketing and technology often take the place of an element much more important to long-term success – telling a story.

Motion pictures and other filmed media have a phenomenal heritage in this country, but like any other business films have to remain relevant to customer’s needs or those customers will move on. We saw this happen in 2005 when the product being delivered was so universally mediocre that audience stayed away and found other ways to entertain themselves.

The reason for this was not complex. Corporations are risk averse entities that like to control every aspect of the product they offer. The problem is that the one element that has the most to do with the success of a film is the one element you simply can’t put into a formula and that means risk.

Because telling a story can’t be quantified producers and studios have turned their focus almost entirely to marketing and technology. The inevitable march of technology means upgrading the technical process of making films both in the special effects that occur on screen and the equipment used to capture the sounds and images. As anyone who has made a film can attest to, this does not always equate to a less expensive or more streamlined process, or more importantly, a better film. Technology just seems to feed a need for more technology, which equates to higher costs.

Because the costs and risks are so high, they spend heavily on marketing to make sure the product is seen. The problem with selling a film this way is that the marketers is one of scale. At a time when people more and more wish to exert their individuality, producers and marketers are trying harder and harder to ram content that appeals to everyone down our throats.

After decades of this the film industry has mutated from a business based on storytelling to a business based on marketing. Most production companies and especially the studios now approach the process of developing new filmed media from an inside out perspective that is operationally driven, instead of from demand side.

This approach has lead to the circular reasoning that we now see in so much filmed entertainment. Producers and studios sink huge sums into elements of the film they hope will protect their massive investments (stars, directors, tons of equipment), and find with each new film those elements cost more and more. They use focus groups and exit interviews to “ensure” a film will perform well enough to justify the cost of production but what they are really doing is testing the film’s marketing hook and providing a false sense of assurance.

Marketers will counter saying focus groups and exit interviews demonstrate a consumer centric viewpoint, but reasoning is flawed. Anyone who has ever conducted focus groups or exit interviews will tell you that people only answer the questions given. How can you possibly learn anything about what a consumer wants by watching them sit in a room surrounded by strangers?

When consumers respond to questions about what they want they usually answer more for less. More effects, more stars, etc. They do this because it’s what they see and know; because it’ what they’re asked. Producers and executives look at this data and develop projects designed to match the “research,” and continue to miss the boat. To truly understand what consumers want producers need to get out into the field and take a more anthropological approach to marketing. They need to observe more and listen more and place more resources into development.

The disconnect we are seeing between media and audiences is self-induced. Massive spending on production dictates that they must try to make films that are all things to all people. When we start looking at people as individuals and delivering stories with universal messages and great stories that connect to people emotionally, then we can manage the money and deliver fantastic entertainment on a budget. Then we can deliver a quieter message that the film exists and is something they might find enjoyable.

Market to Individuals, Reach the World - Part I

In the Jan. 27^th Business section of the New York Times, Michael Barraro and Hillary Chura write about the market missteps of clothing retailer the Gap. The article details the Gap’s downward sales trends by noting: “In an era of niches, when exclusion is as vital as inclusion, Gap has become an anachronism… [They’re strategy of] appealing to all has resulted in sales to too few.”

The message is one that producers, filmmakers and marketers of filmed media should take to heart. We live in a world of individuals. There is no such thing as one size fits all.

In industries as varied as automobiles, fashion and technology, smart companies are seeing that the path to success is dependent on finding niche markets and delivering products, services and media that appeal to people as individuals.

Yet if you listen to most marketers talk, you'll hear them continually refer to audiences in terms of broad demographic clusters. But when was the last time someone came up to you at a party and introduced themselves saying: “Hi, I’m 18 to 34 year old white male,” or “Hello, I’m 25 to 49 year old African-American woman.”

Producers and marketers of filmed media see a film or show become a hit and rush off to clone new projects based on this successful new "formula." And think that people would never want anything else. What they fail to see is that people are more than the sum of their demographic parts. People don't watch filmed media because of marketing - in most cases they watch in spite of it.

My audience-centric view does not mean I'm advocating we ignore marketing, quite the contrary. Audiences appreciate hearing about content that appeals to them and marketing is a way to get them that information. But the industry needs to shift focus. There is no such thing anymore as a broad-based American mainstream and the biggest problem facing the filmed media industry at the moment is their inability to embrace this. They cling to the myth of broad, homogenous audiences because having something quantifiable (however false), is comforting to people spending millions on content. They're only fooling themselves.

Overwhelming cultural and marketplace evidence continues to emerge showing that audiences are tired of one size fits all content (2006 MPAA survey, Jan 22nd Wall Street Journal article: Boss Talk, your own eyes and ears). Yet with few exceptions production companies, corporations and marketers of filmed media continue to develop one size fits all content.

So why is there a disconnect between what audiences say they want and what producers are delivering? In part II I’ll start to address that.

Truth? You can’t handle the truth!

Title: Ace in the Hole
Studio: Paramount
Year released: 1951
MPAA rating: PG
Director: Billy Wilder
Writer: Walter Newman, Lesser Samuels, Billy Wilder
Cast: Kirk Douglas, Jan Sterling, Ray teal, Richard Benedict

In the early moments of Ace in the Hole Kirk Douglas, playing a bad-egg reporter named Tatum, walks into an Albuquerue newspaper with an offer to make the editor 200 dollars a week. The offer he presents to the editor is himself, “a 250 dollar-a-week reporter for 50…, make that 45.”

The script is crisp and witty but this isn’t typical wilder fare. Ace in the hole is a badass mob boss and Douglas - an alcoholic report fired from every major paper in the North East - is the enforcer willing to break our legs at a nod of the boss man’s head.

Douglas enters the film in a broken down car being towed into town. It’s a visual metaphor for his broken down career. Yet Tatum himself isn’t broken – he won’t allow it. He is the one who breaks others whenever and however he can.

The building he enters is the small town office of a small town paper and Tatum makes sure everyone knows he knows it. In one great moment among many Tatum saddles up to the receptionist’s desk. On the wall behind her is an embroidered sign that reads: Tell the Truth. And Tatum does, but it’s always his truth he tells, and Tatum’s truth doesn’t always rely on facts or principles.

Ace in the Hole, originally titled The Big Carnival was a flop when it was released in 1951, but make no mistake, this is a great film. Audiences in the fifties just weren’t ready for this yet. The new print shown at Film Forum was exceptional and the 2-hour running time flew by.

The prescient script comes courtesy of Walter Newman with a polish by Lesser Samuels and Wilder himself. The act I set up tries to prepare us for the cynicism, corruption and violence to follow, but the depth of the cynicism - especially from Tatum - is relentless.

At the end of act I we jump forward a year in time to find Tatum still stuck at the small Albuquerque paper and still looking for the big story to get himself back into the big time news game. And here is where the story takes a truly dark turn.

En route to a small town story about a rattlesnake hunt, Tatum stops at a dust-bowl trading post and overhears a commotion. It seems Leo Minosa (Richard benedict), the owner of the trading post, has been trapped by a cave in while digging up ancient Indian burial pots. Tatum sees his chance and by God he’s going to make the most of it.

Tatum moves in like a hurricane –- flattening anything and anyone who gets in his way. He manipulates the trapped Leo, colludes with the corrupt local sheriff (Ray Teal), twists the arm of the spineless engineer (Lewis Martin), and cajoles, bullies and threatens the jaded Mrs. Minosa (Jan Sterling), all to keep Leo (“you’re the only friend I got.”), buried longer than necessary for the benefit of his copy and career. In a truly great moment Mrs. Minosa marvels at Tatum’s unrivaled, naked cynicism. "I've met a lot of hard-boiled eggs in my life," she says sizing him up, "but you? You're 20 minutes."

Perhaps the most amazing thing about this script and movie is how prescient it is regarding what we now refer to as a media circus. In this film the media circus is a literal happening, as a very real carnival sets up and hundreds of people descend by horse, by car and by train into a frenzy of cheap souvenirs, ancient Indian curses, rival journalists, carnival rides, corn dogs and oh yeah… the human tragedy of a man buried alive in the 'haunted' mine. This is CNN 50 years before CNN started over-saturating the airwaves with non-news stories sold as news to people too busy (lazy?) to care about the difference. Not a step is missed here as even the carnival name (The Great S&M Amusement Corp.), comments on the happenings.

It might seem as if I’ve given a lot away, but the film is exceptionally well crafted and deep. For the attentive viewer many surprises still wait to be uncovered. Oh and for you cynics out there…? You might think you’re tough, but compared to Douglas’ Tatum… you’re Julie Andrews.

This revue unfortunately comes a bit late for the screenings at Film Forum (I saw it on the last night of it’s run – Jan. 18^th), but if you’re a Wilder fan and want to see one of his best do what you have to do and check this out. Ace in the Hole is a superb film and Film Forum is about the only place I know of where you can see it’s like.

If you’re a film fan and don’t yet know about Film Forum then do yourself a favor and discover this treasure. This theater is one of the last great independent cinema houses in the county.

Marketing drives Hollywood

Releasing a film into the marketplace has never been tougher. As customers become increasingly sophisticated and demanding and competition intensifies Hollywood has reacted by officially making marketing their highest priority. As Martin Grove reports in the July 28^th Hollywood Reporter, “Disney and Universal putting seasoned marketing executives in charge of production are only the latest indication that marketers are Hollywood's new power brokers.”

On the surface these moves seem to make sense. With so much at stake financially (average studio production budgets now exceed $60 million), it has become increasing important to create awareness for their product. But what this marketing-centric focus fails to consider is that successfully launching a new film into the market is not just a matter of spending a fortune on promotion. Movies are a combination of commerce and culture, business and art, and what I’m seeing is that the desires of the consumer and the focus of the studios are at odds. This dichotomy is characterized by four findings.

1] The Weak Link

In a recent poll conducted by the MPAA, more than 60% of moviegoers stated they are disappointed with the cookie-cutter product Hollywood has to offer.

In their business model the studios spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a film because they’re banking it will attract a worldwide mass audience and become a franchise. But for this strategy to work each film must have broad appeal in every quadrant (men and women, young and old). To ensure this appeal Hollywood waters-down their stories, removing content that may keep certain demographics from the theater, while at the same time adding elements (explosions, effects, celebrities) in the hope these elements will broaden the film’s appeal.

The problem is when you dilute the content you remove the very thing consumers most want from their moviegoing experience – a great story. The studio strategy is faltering because it is focused solely on marketing at the expense of content and moviegoer satisfaction.

2] A Strong Outlook

According to Pricewaterhousecoopers 2006 media report, filmed entertainment - lead by digital delivery platforms and the Internet - will expand at a compound annual rate of 5.3% through 2010 to reach $104 billion on a global basis.

This is encouraging news, but what’s most interesting is where that growth may be coming from. In 2005 the top 25 films generated $4.05 billion at the box office compared to $4.32 for the top 25 in 2004, a decline of 6.2 percent. Box office tallies for the remaining films however were up 4.6 percent in 2005 indicating that smaller films continue to perform well and fuel the market.

3] The consumer takes charge

As use of the Internet has proliferated, moviegoers have gained unprecedented access to information. More than 40% of moviegoers now make their decisions about what films to see after surfing the Internet, and that number is growing (Kagan & Associates 2005). Literally thousands of web sites, blogs and discussion boards now exist where consumers can find unbiased reviews and contribute to discussions about any movie released.

This means moviegoers no longer have to rely solely on studio marketing when deciding whether to see a movie. Before spending money on gas, popcorn and tickets, consumers are listening -- and talking -- sharing their views about whether a movie lives up to the hype and is worth seeing.

4] Independent films filling the gap

Of the 5 films nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards in both 2004 and 2005, all but one were independent, story-driven films.

These successes and others are attributable in part, to a change in the demographics of the theatrical audience. According to Nancy Klasky, Vice-President of Marketing for Century Theaters, “The movie-going population is aging, so there’s more interest in a little more complicated entertainment for a sophisticated audience.”

These films are satisfying audiences worldwide, performing at the box office and doing so without breaking the bank. As an example, Spielberg’s 2005 studio film Munich cost more to produce than the other four nominated films combined - all independents - yet it won no awards and performed no better at the box office (see Table below).

2005 ACADEMY AWARD BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
TITLE	BUDGET	US GROSS
Brokeback Mountain	$13.9	$83.0
Capote	$7.0	$28.8
Crash *	$6.0	$54.3
Good Night & Good Luck	$7.0	$34.1
Munich	$75.0	$47.0
* Best Picture of the Year
Sources:
boxofficemojo.com, the-numbers.com, oscars.org

5] Bottom Line

The old adage content is king is more relevant than ever and the message for producers is that we must focus our acumen on creating meaningful, entertaining content that is intrinsically valued by a specific audience. The primary lessons I draw:

1. The quality of content matters. When content is marginal and commoditized, audiences will find other ways to entertain and inform themselves

2. Ownership of content doesn't guarantee the ability to control the business model. Audiences control the business model, always

3. Marketing cannot make a movie a hit. Marketing serves only to draw an audience the first few days of a release. After that audience word-of-mouth drives results

Team building for a successful production.

Cynics might shake their heads, but one of the most important elements of managing a successful production is team building. It's also an element that is often pushed to the back burner or ignored because it's hard to attach an immediate cost/benefit relationship. But it's there and it can be huge. In fact I have a hard time listing another industry where people management skills are more important to success. Here's how I approach it.

Trust – Be Open and Honest
Productions are always tough. Cast and crew are most often working under grueling physical and emotional conditions and it can be easy to lose perspective. Like any other workplace there are agendas and various levels of disclosure due to commercial or political pressures and the grapevine is always active. If you are keeping someone in the dark or being deceptive, I can promise it will be uncovered and talked about until it grows into a monster. I've never seen a team produce their best work under those conditions nor seen that type of management work in the long term.

When I manage a production I try to be as open and honest with the team as possible. I try to answer their questions directly (even if the response is not entirely favorable) and act as a conduit of information, not a barrier. If I feel I cannot divulge something, I say so. Everyone understands the need to sometimes keep something close to the vest but the teams I've worked with have always appreciated honestly and reciprocate by relaying information and producing.

Equality – Be fair and even handed
One of the maxims I have as a producer is “individuals can succeed but only the team can fail.” What this basically means is that you should dish out credit where it is due in public, but criticism in private. There will be times when an issue will need to be addressed and when necessary I do so directly and make sure both the negative behavior and means to correct it are understood, but criticism in front of the team is not a motivating force for anyone.

Loyalty – Protect your team
Producers and production managers have a split responsibility - on the one hand you have a duty to your client and the project - on the other you have a responsibility to represent and support your team. In a perfect world these two aims should be neatly aligned – but that's not always the case. In these situations it's important to maintain perspective and integrity. In situations where a conflict arises we must resist the temptation to air dirty laundry. Instead I try to discuss the situation with the team and come up with a consensus solution. Open discussion of the problem will encourage the team to take ownership and solve it themselves.

Building a production where people are motivated to perform at their best takes effort, but the benefits and results can't be overstated. Besides it's not always so tough. Sometimes you can move mountains just by remembering to say thank you.

Eragon Review

20th Century Fox
Year Released: 2006
MPAA Rating: PG
Director: Stefen Fangmeier
Writer: Peter Buchman
Cast: Ed Speleers, Jeremy irons, Sienna Guillory, Robert Carlyle, Djimoun Hounsou, John Malkovich, Rachel Weisz

In a word... worthless.

There are so many things wrong with this movie that it's difficult to know where to start. Ultimately I'll place the blame on the filmmakers, but it runs deeper than that. Director Fangmeier is an alumni of ILM. A damn good effects supervisor (Master & Commander, The Perfect Storm, Saving Private Ryan), he was somehow and unfortunately given the opportunity to direct. And as a director he has proven to be an excellent effects supervisor. But the blame is not all his.

The terrible script, from an equally terrible novel by Christopher Paolini, is wholly bereft of imagination, humanity or anything even approaching genuine emotion. The story is an unconcealed rip-off of Star Wars and to a lesser degree The Lord of the Rings, possessing not a singly original word or frame. There are scenes in the film that are almost word-for-word and shot-for-shot rip offs of those far superior films.

What is perhaps most disturbing is how this film is doing so well at the box office. Chalk another one up to the studio marketing folks who seem to never tire of fooling people into theaters. What the marketing department at Fox did here was cut together a trailer and a campaign that hinted at the mythic story of the ordinary person who has greatness thrust upon him; who somehow finds the strength to stand up to tyranny and save the girl and the world. What the marketing department at Fox did was was sell a lie.

The moment the music swelled and the voice over started explaining the entire story it was clear that this movie was going to be a dog. Not even the effects were worthwhile, which is surprising because that's the one thing you'd think Fangmeier would get right.

The basic story centers around a poor farm boy (can you guess his name...?), who discovers a dragon egg while hunting in the evil King's private woods. He doesn't know it's an egg though, in fact it looks like a huge gemstone. Naturally our young hero picks it up, but instead of running home to show his beloved Uncle, he takes it to the town butcher to trade it for... a piece of meat (this had no relevance to the plot what-so-ever and the kid sure wasn't starving). The butcher - who never again appears in the film - doesn't trade the lousy piece of meat for the huge gem stone/egg however. What he does instead is send the boy off with a warning about hunting in the King's woods. Hmm.

So now the boy wanders home and hides the gem stone/egg from his beloved Uncle and in ways that would make a high school English teacher cringe, the writer has our young hero tell us how he was abandoned by his mother (followed by several maudlin scenes where he laments this fact). He also has a beloved brother (we know this because they wrestle then laugh and hug each other when the wrestling is over) who leaves the farm (this storyline also goes nowhere). The brother - like the mother - is never mentioned or heard from again.

Early on I thought the theme of Eragon was going to center around the connection of family and the strength that can bring to a person. But alas, the filmmakers had no such inclination. In this script there is no theme and storylines are started, stopped and abandoned more often that Paris Hilton releases new sex tapes.

Naturally the egg somehow hatches (maybe because our hero left it on the barn floor...?), Eragon gets a strange mark on his palm (too easy), the evil King senses the dragon, the King's evil wizard sends out deadly, unstoppable maggot ridden assassins to kill the young lad, the unstoppable assassins fail, an enigmatic stranger comes to Eragon's aid, and Eragon develops magic powers that he somehow (magically...?) knows how to use.

Here's where the movie truly loses it's way. In Eragon's world magic has no rules. It isn't learned through years of study and practice; it doesn't have any foundation; it's just something that comes to you wherever you are around a dragon that hatches. Whenever the filmmakers need to "move the story along," they fall back on "magic," as if that were enough.

In a laughable scene, our young hero takes his dragon out to teach it to fly. As it soars into the clouds it "magically" tranforms into an adult dragon that can communicate psychically with Eragon, yet it is not so fully formed that it can breathe fire. How does all this happen you ask...? By "magic!" With these filmmakers magic is as magic does. The problem is that by using these ridiculous plot crutches, Fangmeier, Buchman and the producers miss every opportunity to build emotion or develop any relationship between the characters. There is no character we understand and none we care about.

The team that threw this movie together made up for lack of story, imagination and acting by including sweeping panoramic shots of the Hungarian countryside. And they got their monies worth. In scene after scene, the effects supervis... err, director uses shot after shot of these sweeping vistas. It would have made for a great vacation video on Youtube, but in this movie it was just boring. With n o context or relevance to the story these shots only add to the tedium. In this film, not even the stunning countryside is interesting.

I wondered as I watched this movie (and tried to stay awake), how the producers were able to convince such a competent cast to join them for this crap. When I got home and checked out the budget it all became clear. With an estimated budget of almost $100 million dollars, the actors were obviously convinced to walk through this landscape with the promise of 7 figure paydays. The money was spent, it just wasn't on the screen.

As I said at the start, there are so many things wrong with this film that it would be impossible to cover them all here. The most insidious thing is that the low standards being set here are more and more often becoming the rule in studio films. There is no love of filmmaking here, no love of the fantasy genre in evidence, just a crass attempt to create a franchise film, exploit the audience and leverage fan interest with merchandising deals for toys and video games.

The best I can say about the filmmakers is that they were lazy. The best I can say about the film is that it is worthless. Eragon is easily the worst film I have seen this year.