Andrew Kimery
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I have argued in the past that Apple was never a part of the moon race. As a company, it doesn’t provide the fastest, biggest, loudest, gas guzzling machines on the planet to get you to the moon. That has never been a part of Apple history, and I don’t think it will be a part of their future.”
Apple has been part of the moon race though. I remember in the 90’s Apple had ads with snails carrying intel chips and when the G5 launched Apple proclaimed it the “world’s fastest personal computer”. Apple dosen’t always have the fastest horse in the stable but when they do they aren’t afraid to let everyone know.
Even though the car analogy isn’t perfect I do think there is merit for having a halo product. The iPod cast a halo over Apple at a time when the company didn’t have very much else to crow about and FCP Legend’s success in Hollywood gave Apple cache beyond the pro market. Whatever Apple does with this future MacPro product there is a lot hanging on it (unfairly or not).
-Andrew
-
In the old days people came up through a more structured system and learned these things on their way to becoming a sound person, editor, DP, etc.,. Now that structure is gone so there will be many more inexperienced people at higher level positions.
As an aside, I can’t think of the last time I used a paper map for something other than hiking trails. I keep printed maps in my car for redundancy but my GPS receives live traffic updates via RF and re-routes on the fly if need be and Google Maps (I can’t vouch for MapQuest) includes ETA based on current traffic conditions and I’ve found it to pretty on the money (at least in the greater Los Angeles area). I still err on the side of caution though because, as a mentor of mine put it, to be early is to be on time. I’m in my mid-30’s so I guess that makes me a ‘tweener’ for this discussion.
-
[Ned Miller] “Now, if they can get the money to buy the gear and figure how to operate it they consider themselves “professionals”? Are they taught nothing in film schools? WTF? I have seen such a decline in professional standards in our business in the last 10 years it is truly disgusting. “
In my experience film schools don’t create ready-made professionals. If all they’ve worked on is film school assignments and/or their friend’s movies they have no idea how the ‘real world’ works which is the case here. Anytime I see young people looking for education advice I always tell them to intern or get parttime jobs at local production facilities so they can learn how productions really come together.
I think you answered your own question to an extent. Due to the proliferation of video production and the reduction in the cost of gear you are seeing more people that strike out on their own at a young age as opposed to getting a job at an established shop and learning the ropes. The apprenticeship model that used to be common in this industry is all but dead.
Did you tell the guy that’s it’s poor form to hand out his card like that? To me he sounds more ignorant than malicious.
-
[Daniel Schultz] “Question: When linking to AMA, should I have to navigate to each individual folder and select each mxf file? “
You should be able to select the root folder for each card and Avid will load all the clips on that card into a bin. The folder structure has to be exactly like it is on the card.
-
I agree with Michael. Mixing frame rates just adds another layer of complexity and should be avoided if possible. Make sure your animator knows to give you 23.976 and not 24.000 as some people mistakenly think they are one and the same.
-
[Chris Harlan] “You do not know the particulars of this deal, and you are assuming a lot of things that you have no evidence for, other than you feel that way about “Hollywood.””
I could say the same thing to you. 😉My feelings about “Hollywood” are just pragmatic expectations based on prior history plus current conditions. The biz has a history of doing its best to mitigate its risk (ex. chasing taxpayer subsidies), maximize its profits (ex. previously mentioned accounting) and squeezing people for all they are worth (ex. current VFX uproar) so I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that a studio would gladly let someone else fund a movie no-strings-attached and gladly take in all the revenue from distributing it.
[Chris Harlan] “I don’t see a studio the same way you do, because I see it as a whole bunch of different people at work, not as the entity you see it as. “
On the KS page Rob Thomas only refers to Warner Brothers in a monolithic way so I did as well. If Rob would’ve said, “Rick at Warner Brothers wanted to gage fan interest…” then I would’ve said, “Rick at Warner Brothers probably just wanted to see if they could get a couple mil for free.” I’ve worked at some of the biggest media conglomerates on Earth so I understand that they are run and staffed by individuals and don’t function like a Borg collective. Sometimes it’s just easier to say “Warner Brothers” as opposed to “the people at Warner Brothers making decisions about whether or not there should be a Veronica Mars movie”. 😉
Earlier in the thread you said you wanted to talk about “motives and movements” and I feel like I’ve tried to steer the conversation that way without much success. I’m glad you are excited about it, I hope the movie is great and that the right people get compensated if it does well. I never watched the show and I’m indifferent towards WB so I have no emotional dog in this race. I’m just trying to talk about this situation (given the facts at hand) and even compare it to other similar situations (again, given the facts at hand).
-
A quick Google search told me that SAG low budget is for pictures $2.5 mil and under and I’m sure that would’ve made many people work at low-budget scale. With the success of the Kickstarter campaign they are out of low budget SAG scale range though I’m sure normal scale for someone like Kristen Bell would still be south of what she usually makes. I’m not privy to the budget breakdown but we all know that $2 million (the projected budget) doesn’t go very far in terms of making a feature film.
Hollywood accounting is still alive and well unfortunately. While judges have not been keen on the accounting practices the light only gets shone on the books when someone sues and the case ends up in court (which can be a costly undertaking in and of itself).
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/19435221675/hollywood-accounting-strikes-again-investors-29-paramount-films-that-earned-7-billion-dollars-get-no-return.shtmlPutting aside your personal feelings for this specific project how do you feel about the overall situation in general? A major studio/label/network/etc., has people pay up front to fund a project, it retains distribution rights so it can profit from the finished work while the people who financed the project receive no share of the profits as their money was a donation not an investment. I’m sure studios would love it if this caught on as it allows them to reap the benefits while taking minimal financial risk (just marketing and distribution costs). Movies financed like this probably don’t even need a completion bond as KS has a no refunds policy (even if a backed project never comes to fruition).
Sure, a movie will get made (hopefully it’s on the good side of TV shows turned movies) but at what cost?
-
[Chris Harlan] ” Can’t we talk about a smaller group of business people who’ve made an interesting lateral move in an arena that has been previously blocked?
“Of course, I just think it’s too early to tell if this is a good example of an interesting lateral move. If the profits end up in the hands of the creator (Rob Thomas) and any cast/crew that agreed to work on deferred/reduced pay in order to keep the budget down then I think this is an interesting concept. If the profits end up at WB then, from my perspective, the fans have quit literally gifted a movie to Warner Brothers.
According to the LA Times article WB is going to cover marketing, promotion and distribution and I wonder how much are they going to charge for those services? If standard ‘Hollywood accounting’ is used then the production will be charged exorbitant fees by WB ensuring that the movie will never turn a profit on paper. My hesitation is really centered around WB’s involvement and that they will manipulate the situation to end up with a pile of cash from a movie that cost them $0 to produce and $0 to acquire.
I think the Shadowrun Returns (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-returns) is a better example of what we are talking about. The original creator wanted to make a new Shadowrun game but he no longer held the IP. He went to KS to raise funds (leveraging the game’s existing fan base) to cover licensing the IP from Microsoft, development and distribution. Sans the licensing costs and KS fees all revenue will go to the development team.
-
[Chris Harlan] “I’d kick in for that.”
Me 3.
-
I was impressed both times when Video Game High School blew by its funding goal but, honestly, I am less impressed when something like Veronica Mars or a Tim Schafer project gets funded. Raising over $2 million bucks in a day is of course amazing but the fact that that money is going to fund a Warner Bros movie is, I dunno, weird? According to the KS page, WB gave the campaign their blessing to gauge ‘fan interest’. Of course WB gave it their blessing. Fans are paying WB to help fund the movie then WB will charge the same fans to see the movie in theaters! Since KS backers aren’t investors this is about as close to free money as WB is ever gonna get.
I agree that crowd funding and social media is expanding the playing field so that projects that wouldn’t have had a chance 10yrs ago could get a shot at being made today. I’m not jaded (although considering the years I spent creating content for web-centric companies I should be) but I just have mixed feelings over projects like this getting funded.