Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Michael Moore follows the Radiohead model

Expand Messages
  • Rich Elswick
    don t fool yourself, it isn t the political candidates that get the new media, it is their supporters. As to posting stuff like this, the best I have seen
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      don't fool yourself, it isn't the political candidates that 'get' the new
      media, it is their supporters.

      As to posting stuff like this, the best I have seen yet (not that I have
      seen much) was the way Kevin Smith and co did it for Clerks 2. Actually
      builds up the hype for the release. Of course maybe it was just that movie
      or type and those guys that made it work right.

      Rich


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Sull
      http://www.boondockfans.com ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.boondockfans.com

        On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Rupert <rupert@...> wrote:

        > No, obviously it's not a bad thing if a director just doesn't want to
        > do it. Nobody's forcing anyone. My point - and maybe it was badly
        > made - is that so many other people in unexpected places are using
        > online video to promote ongoing projects... it seems absurd to me
        > that filmmakers aren't at the forefront of that phenomenon. And
        > they're not. Quite the opposite. And yet how many of these feature
        > films will have a "Making of" movie being shot expensively for the
        > DVD (or, in past times, for a momentary cable broadcast)?
        >
        >
        > On 5-Sep-08, at 4:25 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote:
        >
        > I don't think its exactly Negative if a director doesnt want to blog his
        > activites or post dailies onto the web. Maybe the director just wants to
        > show a finished product; many people are like that.
        > Kent, you're making a movie (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!!!), do
        > feel the
        > need to blog the production process? I assume you guys have talked to
        > the
        > producer about this sort of stuff. Is there anything you can share about
        > that?
        >
        > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Rupert <rupert@...<rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > > I mean, REALLY - it's now 4-5 years since the people on this list
        > > started mucking about with this stuff.
        > >
        > > And Jan's director is unusual in his use of social media and video to
        > > document the production of his independent movie??
        > >
        > > Even politicians are now well-versed in using videoblogging and all
        > > kinds of web video to sell their message as they go along.
        > > http://johnmccain.blip.tv/
        > >
        > > The Queen has her own YouTube channel, for god's sake. And it's
        > > quite good.
        > > http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalChannel
        > >
        > > When John McCain and Elizabeth II are more innovative in their use of
        > > online video than professional moviemakers, you know something is
        > > seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
        > >
        > > I edited out a lot of swear words from this post.
        > >
        > > Rupert
        > > http://twittervlog.tv
        > >
        > >
        > > On 5-Sep-08, at 4:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
        > >
        > > Good for Michael Moore. Yes, some of them are starting to get it.
        > > But even the ones who are getting it are only partly getting it, and
        > > - like your director, Jan - are bullied by producers and funders who
        > > are still a long way from getting it.
        > >
        > > In May, I was at a talk about the future of documentaries given by
        > > Deborah Scranton, who directed War Tapes.
        > >
        > > In the end, she advocated YouTube as the best way to get your films
        > > seen by people.
        > >
        > > I asked her how she thought that kind of free distribution fitted
        > > with getting the considerable funding needed to make big
        > > documentaries like hers.
        > >
        > > She didn't have an answer.
        > >
        > > And then I asked her whether it was OK for The War Tapes to be
        > > distributed on YouTube so that it got viewed by more people.
        > >
        > > She said "Oh, that's a question for the producer."
        > >
        > > I was really disappointed with her. One moment, she was saying "It's
        > > great for you little people to get your films in front of an audience
        > > on YouTube" - and the next, she wouldn't even give her personal view
        > > about her own film being shown that way, to a room full of emerging
        > > documentary filmmakers.
        > >
        > > These questions are no brainers to me, and yet she was supposed to be
        > > giving an authoritative view about the future of documentaries. It's
        > > all very easy for established filmmakers to say "Up and coming
        > > filmmakers should use YouTube" - but if they say that, then they have
        > > to be able to justify why THEY should use it, too - regardless of
        > > what the studio's lawyers say in 2008. Otherwise it's just a
        > > bullshit platitude to make them sound like they get it. And it
        > > doesn't address the problem of how big documentaries will be funded
        > > ten years from now.
        > >
        > > I'm always amazed at how long it takes TV and Film professionals to
        > > understand and get excited about this stuff, instead of seeing it as
        > > a financial threat.
        > >
        > > Rupert
        > > http://twittervlog.tv
        > >
        > > On 5-Sep-08, at 3:29 PM, Jan McLaughlin wrote:
        > >
        > > Great news, really.
        > >
        > > They begin to 'get it'.
        > >
        > > Ha!
        > >
        > > Bwah-hahaha.
        > >
        > > Yes!!!!!!!!!
        > >
        > > The director of the indie movie I just finished mixing ("City
        > > Island") is
        > > putting clips from dailies (bloopers & such) online on his blog
        > through
        > > YouTube.
        > >
        > > <
        > > http://moviestildawn.blogspot.com/2008/09/city-island-empire-diner-
        > > moment.html
        > > >
        > >
        > > The producers had him cease and desist for about a week during
        > > production,
        > > but blog comments convinced 'em it was the right thing to do.
        > >
        > > One producer at a time...
        > >
        > > The director also wants to break his previous movie ("Two Family
        > House")
        > > into 10-minute segments and put the whole thing on YouTube - and WILL
        > > eventually. The director definitely gets it.
        > >
        > > Jan
        > >
        > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jay dedman
        > <jay.dedman@... <jay.dedman%40gmail.com><jay.dedman%40gmail.com>>
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > > Michael Moore is putting out his new film, "Slacker Rising", on
        > > the web
        > > > through blip.tv (for free).
        > > >
        > > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080905-michael-moore-skips-
        > > box-office-film-heads-straight-to-net.html
        > > >
        > > > "*Slacker Uprising* details Moore's tour of 62 US cities in an
        > > attempt to
        > > > rally young voters before the presidential election in 2004. Moore
        > > says
        > > > that
        > > > he originally considered releasing the movie in theaters, as he
        > > did with
        > > > his
        > > > 2004 film criticizing the Bush Administration, *Fahrenheit 9/11*.
        > > However,
        > > > he decided to go the online route instead as a symbol of gratitude
        > > to his
        > > > fans. "I thought it'd be a nice way to celebrate my 20th year of
        > > doing
        > > > this," Moore told the Associated
        > > > Press<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?
        > > id=12199>.
        > > > "And also help get out the vote for November. I've been thinking
        > > about what
        > > > I want to do to help with the election this year."
        > > >
        > > > I know Michael Moore and Radiohead have built-in audiences, but it
        > > is also
        > > > getting people used to these new distribution models.
        > > >
        > > > Jay
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > http://jaydedman.com
        > > > 917 371 6790
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > --
        > > Jan McLaughlin
        > > Production Sound Mixer
        > > air = 862-571-5334
        > > aim = janofsound
        > > skype = janmclaughlin
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > --
        > Schlomo Rabinowitz
        > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
        > http://hatfactory.net
        > AIM:schlomochat
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • schlomo rabinowitz
        Awesome!:) Cant remember the name of the documentary of Troy and the making of the film, but its brilliant. One of the best onscreen flameouts I ve ever seen.
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Awesome!:)
          Cant remember the name of the documentary of Troy and the making of the
          film, but its brilliant. One of the best onscreen flameouts I've ever seen.
          Well worth renting.



          On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Sull <sulleleven@...> wrote:

          > http://www.boondockfans.com
          >
          > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Rupert <rupert@...<rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org>>
          > wrote:
          >
          > > No, obviously it's not a bad thing if a director just doesn't want to
          > > do it. Nobody's forcing anyone. My point - and maybe it was badly
          > > made - is that so many other people in unexpected places are using
          > > online video to promote ongoing projects... it seems absurd to me
          > > that filmmakers aren't at the forefront of that phenomenon. And
          > > they're not. Quite the opposite. And yet how many of these feature
          > > films will have a "Making of" movie being shot expensively for the
          > > DVD (or, in past times, for a momentary cable broadcast)?
          > >
          > >
          > > On 5-Sep-08, at 4:25 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote:
          > >
          > > I don't think its exactly Negative if a director doesnt want to blog his
          > > activites or post dailies onto the web. Maybe the director just wants to
          > > show a finished product; many people are like that.
          > > Kent, you're making a movie (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!!!), do
          > > feel the
          > > need to blog the production process? I assume you guys have talked to
          > > the
          > > producer about this sort of stuff. Is there anything you can share about
          > > that?
          > >
          > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Rupert <rupert@...<rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org>
          > <rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org>>
          > > wrote:
          > >
          > > > I mean, REALLY - it's now 4-5 years since the people on this list
          > > > started mucking about with this stuff.
          > > >
          > > > And Jan's director is unusual in his use of social media and video to
          > > > document the production of his independent movie??
          > > >
          > > > Even politicians are now well-versed in using videoblogging and all
          > > > kinds of web video to sell their message as they go along.
          > > > http://johnmccain.blip.tv/
          > > >
          > > > The Queen has her own YouTube channel, for god's sake. And it's
          > > > quite good.
          > > > http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalChannel
          > > >
          > > > When John McCain and Elizabeth II are more innovative in their use of
          > > > online video than professional moviemakers, you know something is
          > > > seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
          > > >
          > > > I edited out a lot of swear words from this post.
          > > >
          > > > Rupert
          > > > http://twittervlog.tv
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > On 5-Sep-08, at 4:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Good for Michael Moore. Yes, some of them are starting to get it.
          > > > But even the ones who are getting it are only partly getting it, and
          > > > - like your director, Jan - are bullied by producers and funders who
          > > > are still a long way from getting it.
          > > >
          > > > In May, I was at a talk about the future of documentaries given by
          > > > Deborah Scranton, who directed War Tapes.
          > > >
          > > > In the end, she advocated YouTube as the best way to get your films
          > > > seen by people.
          > > >
          > > > I asked her how she thought that kind of free distribution fitted
          > > > with getting the considerable funding needed to make big
          > > > documentaries like hers.
          > > >
          > > > She didn't have an answer.
          > > >
          > > > And then I asked her whether it was OK for The War Tapes to be
          > > > distributed on YouTube so that it got viewed by more people.
          > > >
          > > > She said "Oh, that's a question for the producer."
          > > >
          > > > I was really disappointed with her. One moment, she was saying "It's
          > > > great for you little people to get your films in front of an audience
          > > > on YouTube" - and the next, she wouldn't even give her personal view
          > > > about her own film being shown that way, to a room full of emerging
          > > > documentary filmmakers.
          > > >
          > > > These questions are no brainers to me, and yet she was supposed to be
          > > > giving an authoritative view about the future of documentaries. It's
          > > > all very easy for established filmmakers to say "Up and coming
          > > > filmmakers should use YouTube" - but if they say that, then they have
          > > > to be able to justify why THEY should use it, too - regardless of
          > > > what the studio's lawyers say in 2008. Otherwise it's just a
          > > > bullshit platitude to make them sound like they get it. And it
          > > > doesn't address the problem of how big documentaries will be funded
          > > > ten years from now.
          > > >
          > > > I'm always amazed at how long it takes TV and Film professionals to
          > > > understand and get excited about this stuff, instead of seeing it as
          > > > a financial threat.
          > > >
          > > > Rupert
          > > > http://twittervlog.tv
          > > >
          > > > On 5-Sep-08, at 3:29 PM, Jan McLaughlin wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Great news, really.
          > > >
          > > > They begin to 'get it'.
          > > >
          > > > Ha!
          > > >
          > > > Bwah-hahaha.
          > > >
          > > > Yes!!!!!!!!!
          > > >
          > > > The director of the indie movie I just finished mixing ("City
          > > > Island") is
          > > > putting clips from dailies (bloopers & such) online on his blog
          > > through
          > > > YouTube.
          > > >
          > > > <
          > > > http://moviestildawn.blogspot.com/2008/09/city-island-empire-diner-
          > > > moment.html
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > > The producers had him cease and desist for about a week during
          > > > production,
          > > > but blog comments convinced 'em it was the right thing to do.
          > > >
          > > > One producer at a time...
          > > >
          > > > The director also wants to break his previous movie ("Two Family
          > > House")
          > > > into 10-minute segments and put the whole thing on YouTube - and WILL
          > > > eventually. The director definitely gets it.
          > > >
          > > > Jan
          > > >
          > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jay dedman
          > > <jay.dedman@... <jay.dedman%40gmail.com> <jay.dedman%40gmail.com
          > ><jay.dedman%40gmail.com>>
          > > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > > Michael Moore is putting out his new film, "Slacker Rising", on
          > > > the web
          > > > > through blip.tv (for free).
          > > > >
          > > > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080905-michael-moore-skips-
          > > > box-office-film-heads-straight-to-net.html
          > > > >
          > > > > "*Slacker Uprising* details Moore's tour of 62 US cities in an
          > > > attempt to
          > > > > rally young voters before the presidential election in 2004. Moore
          > > > says
          > > > > that
          > > > > he originally considered releasing the movie in theaters, as he
          > > > did with
          > > > > his
          > > > > 2004 film criticizing the Bush Administration, *Fahrenheit 9/11*.
          > > > However,
          > > > > he decided to go the online route instead as a symbol of gratitude
          > > > to his
          > > > > fans. "I thought it'd be a nice way to celebrate my 20th year of
          > > > doing
          > > > > this," Moore told the Associated
          > > > > Press<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?
          > > > id=12199>.
          > > > > "And also help get out the vote for November. I've been thinking
          > > > about what
          > > > > I want to do to help with the election this year."
          > > > >
          > > > > I know Michael Moore and Radiohead have built-in audiences, but it
          > > > is also
          > > > > getting people used to these new distribution models.
          > > > >
          > > > > Jay
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > --
          > > > > http://jaydedman.com
          > > > > 917 371 6790
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ------------------------------------
          > > > >
          > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > > --
          > > > Jan McLaughlin
          > > > Production Sound Mixer
          > > > air = 862-571-5334
          > > > aim = janofsound
          > > > skype = janmclaughlin
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > --
          > > Schlomo Rabinowitz
          > > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
          > > http://hatfactory.net
          > > AIM:schlomochat
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >



          --
          Schlomo Rabinowitz
          http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
          http://hatfactory.net
          AIM:schlomochat


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Irina
          hahah of course i m like oh cool there s a boondocks movie ie http://www.boondockstv.com/ ... -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 8, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            hahah of course i'm like oh cool there's a boondocks movie ie
            http://www.boondockstv.com/

            On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Sull <sulleleven@...> wrote:

            > http://www.boondockfans.com
            >
            >
            > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Rupert <rupert@...<rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org>>
            > wrote:
            >
            > > No, obviously it's not a bad thing if a director just doesn't want to
            > > do it. Nobody's forcing anyone. My point - and maybe it was badly
            > > made - is that so many other people in unexpected places are using
            > > online video to promote ongoing projects... it seems absurd to me
            > > that filmmakers aren't at the forefront of that phenomenon. And
            > > they're not. Quite the opposite. And yet how many of these feature
            > > films will have a "Making of" movie being shot expensively for the
            > > DVD (or, in past times, for a momentary cable broadcast)?
            > >
            > >
            > > On 5-Sep-08, at 4:25 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote:
            > >
            > > I don't think its exactly Negative if a director doesnt want to blog his
            > > activites or post dailies onto the web. Maybe the director just wants to
            > > show a finished product; many people are like that.
            > > Kent, you're making a movie (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!!!), do
            > > feel the
            > > need to blog the production process? I assume you guys have talked to
            > > the
            > > producer about this sort of stuff. Is there anything you can share about
            > > that?
            > >
            > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Rupert <rupert@...<rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org>
            > <rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org>>
            >
            > > wrote:
            > >
            > > > I mean, REALLY - it's now 4-5 years since the people on this list
            > > > started mucking about with this stuff.
            > > >
            > > > And Jan's director is unusual in his use of social media and video to
            > > > document the production of his independent movie??
            > > >
            > > > Even politicians are now well-versed in using videoblogging and all
            > > > kinds of web video to sell their message as they go along.
            > > > http://johnmccain.blip.tv/
            > > >
            > > > The Queen has her own YouTube channel, for god's sake. And it's
            > > > quite good.
            > > > http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalChannel
            > > >
            > > > When John McCain and Elizabeth II are more innovative in their use of
            > > > online video than professional moviemakers, you know something is
            > > > seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
            > > >
            > > > I edited out a lot of swear words from this post.
            > > >
            > > > Rupert
            > > > http://twittervlog.tv
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > On 5-Sep-08, at 4:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Good for Michael Moore. Yes, some of them are starting to get it.
            > > > But even the ones who are getting it are only partly getting it, and
            > > > - like your director, Jan - are bullied by producers and funders who
            > > > are still a long way from getting it.
            > > >
            > > > In May, I was at a talk about the future of documentaries given by
            > > > Deborah Scranton, who directed War Tapes.
            > > >
            > > > In the end, she advocated YouTube as the best way to get your films
            > > > seen by people.
            > > >
            > > > I asked her how she thought that kind of free distribution fitted
            > > > with getting the considerable funding needed to make big
            > > > documentaries like hers.
            > > >
            > > > She didn't have an answer.
            > > >
            > > > And then I asked her whether it was OK for The War Tapes to be
            > > > distributed on YouTube so that it got viewed by more people.
            > > >
            > > > She said "Oh, that's a question for the producer."
            > > >
            > > > I was really disappointed with her. One moment, she was saying "It's
            > > > great for you little people to get your films in front of an audience
            > > > on YouTube" - and the next, she wouldn't even give her personal view
            > > > about her own film being shown that way, to a room full of emerging
            > > > documentary filmmakers.
            > > >
            > > > These questions are no brainers to me, and yet she was supposed to be
            > > > giving an authoritative view about the future of documentaries. It's
            > > > all very easy for established filmmakers to say "Up and coming
            > > > filmmakers should use YouTube" - but if they say that, then they have
            > > > to be able to justify why THEY should use it, too - regardless of
            > > > what the studio's lawyers say in 2008. Otherwise it's just a
            > > > bullshit platitude to make them sound like they get it. And it
            > > > doesn't address the problem of how big documentaries will be funded
            > > > ten years from now.
            > > >
            > > > I'm always amazed at how long it takes TV and Film professionals to
            > > > understand and get excited about this stuff, instead of seeing it as
            > > > a financial threat.
            > > >
            > > > Rupert
            > > > http://twittervlog.tv
            > > >
            > > > On 5-Sep-08, at 3:29 PM, Jan McLaughlin wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Great news, really.
            > > >
            > > > They begin to 'get it'.
            > > >
            > > > Ha!
            > > >
            > > > Bwah-hahaha.
            > > >
            > > > Yes!!!!!!!!!
            > > >
            > > > The director of the indie movie I just finished mixing ("City
            > > > Island") is
            > > > putting clips from dailies (bloopers & such) online on his blog
            > > through
            > > > YouTube.
            > > >
            > > > <
            > > > http://moviestildawn.blogspot.com/2008/09/city-island-empire-diner-
            > > > moment.html
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > The producers had him cease and desist for about a week during
            > > > production,
            > > > but blog comments convinced 'em it was the right thing to do.
            > > >
            > > > One producer at a time...
            > > >
            > > > The director also wants to break his previous movie ("Two Family
            > > House")
            > > > into 10-minute segments and put the whole thing on YouTube - and WILL
            > > > eventually. The director definitely gets it.
            > > >
            > > > Jan
            > > >
            > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jay dedman
            > > <jay.dedman@... <jay.dedman%40gmail.com> <jay.dedman%40gmail.com
            > ><jay.dedman%40gmail.com>>
            >
            > > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > > > Michael Moore is putting out his new film, "Slacker Rising", on
            > > > the web
            > > > > through blip.tv (for free).
            > > > >
            > > > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080905-michael-moore-skips-
            > > > box-office-film-heads-straight-to-net.html
            > > > >
            > > > > "*Slacker Uprising* details Moore's tour of 62 US cities in an
            > > > attempt to
            > > > > rally young voters before the presidential election in 2004. Moore
            > > > says
            > > > > that
            > > > > he originally considered releasing the movie in theaters, as he
            > > > did with
            > > > > his
            > > > > 2004 film criticizing the Bush Administration, *Fahrenheit 9/11*.
            > > > However,
            > > > > he decided to go the online route instead as a symbol of gratitude
            > > > to his
            > > > > fans. "I thought it'd be a nice way to celebrate my 20th year of
            > > > doing
            > > > > this," Moore told the Associated
            > > > > Press<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?
            > > > id=12199>.
            > > > > "And also help get out the vote for November. I've been thinking
            > > > about what
            > > > > I want to do to help with the election this year."
            > > > >
            > > > > I know Michael Moore and Radiohead have built-in audiences, but it
            > > > is also
            > > > > getting people used to these new distribution models.
            > > > >
            > > > > Jay
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > --
            > > > > http://jaydedman.com
            > > > > 917 371 6790
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > ------------------------------------
            > > > >
            > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > --
            > > > Jan McLaughlin
            > > > Production Sound Mixer
            > > > air = 862-571-5334
            > > > aim = janofsound
            > > > skype = janmclaughlin
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > > --
            > > Schlomo Rabinowitz
            > > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
            > > http://hatfactory.net
            > > AIM:schlomochat
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >



            --
            http://geekentertainment.tv


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Kent Nichols
            ... wants to ... feel the ... to the ... about ... Hey, It s such an individual thing. Our producer on Tomatoes is pretty net savvy, but I doubt he d be down
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 8, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz"
              <schlomo@...> wrote:
              >
              > I don't think its exactly Negative if a director doesnt want to blog his
              > activites or post dailies onto the web. Maybe the director just
              wants to
              > show a finished product; many people are like that.
              > Kent, you're making a movie (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!!!), do
              feel the
              > need to blog the production process? I assume you guys have talked
              to the
              > producer about this sort of stuff. Is there anything you can share
              about
              > that?
              >

              Hey,

              It's such an individual thing. Our producer on Tomatoes is pretty net
              savvy, but I doubt he'd be down with putting the whole movie on YouTube.

              But there's an inherent conflict between directors and producers.
              Directers want to capture their vision and then share that vision with
              as pany people as possible. Producers want that vision to come in on
              time and on budget and then get people to pay to see it.

              When you are acting as both director and producer, the director in you
              can easily persuade the producer in you to let it free and figure out
              the money situation later.

              When you are a work for hire director that's been paid well for you
              services by a producer, it's harder to win that fight because you
              don't have any copyright claim.

              But marketing people and creatives covertly upload and seed their work
              all the time. They just can't do it officially or publicly condone
              it. Their legal departments would freak.

              This new model, where you give it all away and still make money is
              strange and antithetical to everything that has come before it.

              It has worked, and will continue to, but the paychecks are smaller
              than in the old way.

              Even though we are very successful in the online world, Douglas and I
              get paid what beginning sitcom writers get paid. Which is good money,
              but not great. So if you're talking to someone who's used getting
              paid in the old system, and then you tell them to give there stuff
              away, of course you're going to get strange looks.

              Once those people have been used up by the system, or they were never
              even given a chance (like me), the net offers a connection with an
              audience in a very deep and meaningful way and the ability to get paid
              if you streamline out the unnecessary middlemen.

              Showbiz is a slowly evolving beast. The young PR and marketing peeps
              that are infiltrating big media's ranks right now are becoming really
              net savvy. I was reached out to over Twitter by two separate flacks
              for doing two separate things with the MTV Video Music Awards.

              In ten years those people will be the VPs in charge and in 20 years
              they'll be the CEOs.

              -Kent, askaninja.com
            • Jen Simmons
              I agree with your insights, Rupert. YouTube is great for marketing. Not for distribution. Blip.tv is great for distribution. There s a big difference between
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 8, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree with your insights, Rupert.

                YouTube is great for marketing. Not for distribution. Blip.tv is great
                for distribution. There's a big difference between the two. Filmmakers
                (big and small) understand so much about how to distribute and market
                using the old tools. There's lots of pro and con to each of the
                zillion options. Yet so many film/tv pros think everything "internet"
                is all the same stuff.

                Building a website that's a flat presentation of static content
                (with or without animation) is like sending out direct mail postcard.
                Building a website that fosters discussion and fan-based-promotion is
                like orchestrating a underground word-of-mouth marketing campaign.
                Doing an video interview with an internet-based show is like getting
                booked on a t.v. or radio show for an interview. Putting trailers up
                on YouTube is like buying t.v. ads for your trailer. Using blip.tv to
                distribute the film is like getting booked onto television timeslot.
                Using the Apple store to sell digital downloads is like making DVDs
                (or VHS tapes) and selling them in stores. Just because these are all
                examples of "stuff on websites" doesn't mean it's all the same.

                I wonder sometimes how long it will take for people to understand the
                reality of computers and the internet, instead of the distorted
                stereotypes. Maybe never. It's interesting that many *media*
                professionals are having the hardest time of all. Anyone who says "I
                don't know, I should ask my kid. They know" is not even trying.
                (Because 98% of kids don't know anything about what is happening
                either.) Those filmmakers / media pros are going to be left in the dust.

                Jen

                Jen Simmons
                http://jensimmons.com
                http://milkweedmediadesign.com



                On Sep 5, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Rupert wrote:

                > Good for Michael Moore. Yes, some of them are starting to get it.
                > But even the ones who are getting it are only partly getting it, and
                > - like your director, Jan - are bullied by producers and funders who
                > are still a long way from getting it.
                >
                > In May, I was at a talk about the future of documentaries given by
                > Deborah Scranton, who directed War Tapes.
                >
                > In the end, she advocated YouTube as the best way to get your films
                > seen by people.
                >
                > I asked her how she thought that kind of free distribution fitted
                > with getting the considerable funding needed to make big
                > documentaries like hers.
                >
                > She didn't have an answer.
                >
                > And then I asked her whether it was OK for The War Tapes to be
                > distributed on YouTube so that it got viewed by more people.
                >
                > She said "Oh, that's a question for the producer."
                >
                > I was really disappointed with her. One moment, she was saying "It's
                > great for you little people to get your films in front of an audience
                > on YouTube" - and the next, she wouldn't even give her personal view
                > about her own film being shown that way, to a room full of emerging
                > documentary filmmakers.
                >
                > These questions are no brainers to me, and yet she was supposed to be
                > giving an authoritative view about the future of documentaries. It's
                > all very easy for established filmmakers to say "Up and coming
                > filmmakers should use YouTube" - but if they say that, then they have
                > to be able to justify why THEY should use it, too - regardless of
                > what the studio's lawyers say in 2008. Otherwise it's just a
                > bullshit platitude to make them sound like they get it. And it
                > doesn't address the problem of how big documentaries will be funded
                > ten years from now.
                >
                > I'm always amazed at how long it takes TV and Film professionals to
                > understand and get excited about this stuff, instead of seeing it as
                > a financial threat.
                >
                > Rupert
                > http://twittervlog.tv



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Sull
                i was an urging voice in 2004 for Mr. Moore to distribute his works for free and not profit from the political atmosphere and the war as he was. i guess he had
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 22, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  i was an urging voice in 2004 for Mr. Moore to distribute his works for free
                  and not profit from the political atmosphere and the war as he was.
                  i guess he had to make lots more money first before he could be willing to
                  give his candid films away.

                  here is a nice open letter to Michael Moore:
                  http://www.counterpunch.org/mayer09222008.html
                  *Whatever Happened to Voting Your Conscience? * *An Open Letter to Michael
                  Moore (AKA God's Pen Pal) *

                  By CARL J. MAYER


                  Dear Michael:

                  I apologize for writing you an open letter because you are busy
                  corresponding with God.[1]

                  I did not want to write an open letter, but I penned a private one to you
                  some time ago and received no response.

                  We have met on numerous occasions and have known each other for almost a
                  decade, so I would appreciate an answer.

                  The point of this letter is to ask you to reconcile your completely
                  contradictory written statements and public pronunciations about voting your
                  conscience on the one hand (Independent Ralph Nader in 2000) and supporting
                  candidates who oppose all the key issues you support on the other (Democrats
                  Barack Obama in 2008 and John Kerry in 2004.)

                  I'm concerned that your written and oral statements are so contradictory
                  that you are losing any residual political credibility you might have
                  enjoyed. I think the youth of America and non-voters deserve answers, as you
                  have anointed yourself as their representative.

                  We first met back in 2000 when you supported the Ralph Nader for President
                  Campaign. We met at numerous Super Rallies that Nader held all over the
                  country to sold-out crowds ranging from 20,000 in Madison Square Garden to
                  15,000 in Portland, Oregon to 12,000 in Minneapolis.

                  Your message at each rally was crystal clear: vote your conscience. At
                  Madison Square Garden you bellowed while inveighing 20,000 people not to
                  vote for of Al Gore: "The lesser of two evils is still evil!"

                  One week before the 2000 election, you wrote a letter to Gore:
                  Look, Al, you have screwed up -- big time. By now, you should have sent that
                  smirking idiot back to Texas.... You should have wiped the floor with him
                  during the three debates. But you didn't.... �You don't realize that it's
                  YOU and the Democrats that are responsible for the possibility of Bush
                  winning next Tuesday....

                  Instead of...owning up to your mistakes, you and your people are blaming
                  some rumpled senior citizen lawyer who is only following his
                  conscience....Ralph Nader has devoted his entire life to making the rest of
                  our lives better. Because of him we have the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
                  Act, the EPA, OSHA, airbags and seatbelts, the Freedom of Information Act --
                  the list goes on and on. What have YOU done to save a few million lives?

                  ...You and your "New Democrats" abandoned the poor, the working class, and
                  the middle class....You and the Democrats have created the monster know as
                  "W"...

                  I want Ralph Nader to get millions of votes on Tuesday. I have seen the
                  response to Ralph at numerous huge rallies across the country. There is a
                  progressive movement afoot in America and it needs to explode into a
                  majority movement -- beginning now, not four years from now.... I will not
                  feel one iota of guilt should you screw up and lose on Tuesday. The blame I
                  do share is that I voted for you and Bill in 1992...[2]

                  Your position in 2000 could not have been more steadfast.

                  By 2004 you decided to back John Kerry and the Democrats. You traveled
                  around the country telling college students NOT TO VOTE for Nader after
                  telling them TO VOTE for Nader in 2000.

                  By 2008 you have become a full-on cheerleader for the Democratic Party.

                  You basically endorsed Edwards in the primary (good call!) and now you are
                  campaigning all out for Obama; I even saw you on Larry King the other night
                  saying that Obama's convention speech sent chills up your spine. (Do
                  corporate ads for Pepto-Bismol get you misty as well?)

                  Last month you wrote a piece calling anyone who voted for Nader "crazy." [3]

                  Earlier in the year you appeared on Larry King and a fan of yours called in
                  and observed that since none of the Democratic candidates support
                  single-payer national health insurance � which you do � that you should
                  support Nader.

                  Your response was surprising: you called Ralph a "sad" reflection of his
                  former self and urged people not to vote for him. (I can't remember if this
                  was before or after you told King that one of your top priorities as
                  president would be to give all Americans HBO.)

                  Many progressives are quite puzzled by your behavior regarding Nader given
                  that he once employed you when nobody would and helped bankroll your first
                  film. But apparently, gratitude is not your long suit.

                  I ran into you late in January, 2006 when we happened to stay at the same
                  hotel during a vacation. I approached you at dinner, introduced myself (you,
                  of course, had no idea who I was despite having met me numerous times) and
                  then you proceeded to tell me yourself that Ralph Nader is "crazy."
                  (Fortunately for you, Ralph is a public figure so your constant repetition
                  of this accusation is not actionable.)

                  After our meeting I decided that regardless of your erratic behavior,
                  progressive people really should work together rather than fighting one
                  another, so I sent a bottle of wine to your room and penned you a
                  handwritten note apologizing for any disagreements with the Nader camp in
                  2004 and asking for reconciliation.

                  You neither wrote back nor thanked me for the wine.

                  Now, in 2008, you are at it again, relentlessly telling people to abandon
                  their beliefs and to abandon the Nader campaign.

                  I thought I would compare how your current advice measures up to your past
                  writings.

                  On November 7, 2000 you penned a "Final Election Day Letter" urging your
                  supporters to back Nader no matter what and in every state. Stunningly, your
                  support for Nader was couched in inviolate moral terms: your letter makes
                  clear that you would always vote for an idealist like Nader and that to do
                  so is a duty to the next generation and to posterity:

                  For some reason, I never grew up, and, I guess, weirdly enough never gave up
                  hope. To hear my fellow baby boomers this past week instruct me in the
                  intricacies of "strategic voting" and "the lesser of two evils" and "you
                  see, a vote for this guy is really a vote for that guy," made me wonder how
                  I missed the boat � the one on which you learn to act "responsible," and be
                  "pragmatic," and, of course, "compromise."

                  That's why it's been so refreshing to be around the young people who have
                  thronged by the hundreds of thousands to the Nader campaign. They don't want
                  to hear about settling for the second worst guy. They can't comprehend their
                  elders' pleas to abandon their conscience and do something in the voting
                  booth they don't believe in. These young people are filled with a fire to
                  stand up, speak out, and make this world a better place. Nothing � not even
                  the fear of the Bogeyman Bush � will smother their passion to do the right
                  thing.

                  Today, my daughter will vote in her first election. I believe the worst
                  thing I could do as a parent is to tell her that she should not be following
                  her own conscience. I will not tell her to be "realistic"; she will have
                  plenty of time to deal with the harsh realities of this world. Why should
                  she begin her adult life having to settle for something she doesn't believe
                  in?

                  Has our willingness to compromise, to vote for the lesser of two evils,
                  gotten us better candidates? Has our abandoning the beliefs and positions we
                  once so strongly fought for resulted in a better life for the poor and the
                  working class?

                  At some point, you have to say enough is enough. Today is that day for me. I
                  will go to the polls and vote for Ralph Nader. I am doing so for the only
                  reason you should ever vote for anyone. I am voting for Ralph because it is
                  what my conscience says is right. I am doing what they taught us to do in
                  civics class � vote for who you think the best candidate is. Period.

                  How many of you can honestly say Ralph Nader is not the best candidate?
                  Don't reach into your bag of rationalizations � just answer this one
                  question honestly. If you want all the dirty money out of our elections, you
                  HAVE to vote for Nader because he is the only one � not Bush, not Gore � who
                  would eliminate it entirely. If you think the minimum wage should go up more
                  than 50 cents an hour in the next year, then you HAVE to vote for Ralph
                  Nader as he is only one who would raise it to a real living wage. If you
                  believe there should be universal health coverage NOW, then you have to vote
                  for Ralph Nader because he is the only one who would sign that bill. Click
                  here ("20 Reasons to Vote for Nader") and look at this list. And if find
                  yourself in agreement, then how can you NOT vote for Ralph Nader?

                  Do not vote from your fears, no matter where you live. Decisions made in
                  fear are usually the wrong decisions and lead to lousy consequences. You
                  have to find the courage to act on your convictions. Remember what that felt
                  like? To believe in something, even if it was against all the odds?When Rosa
                  Parks took that seat at the front of the bus, do you think she was afraid?
                  You bet she was. �The revolutionaries that founded this country were not
                  stymied by their fear of King George. And they did not even have the support
                  of 75% of the colonists! Nevertheless, they followed their conscience.�Can
                  we not aspire to what those who came before us were willing to do so that we
                  would ALL have the right to vote our conscience today? Do we not dishonor
                  them by our willingness to settle for less than our conscience demands?[4]

                  Your 2000 letter was quite compelling. What bothers me and others is that
                  you have completely repudiated your own writings by your words and deeds
                  since 2000. After telling America's students, and you own daughter, to vote
                  their conscience, you are now telling them to vote for the lesser of two
                  evils, a position you swore you would never adopt.

                  As disturbing, from my perspective, is that you have removed from your
                  website the "20 Reasons to vote for Ralph Nader." [5] This is something a
                  corporation would do when damaging documents are exposed: just shred the
                  evidence.

                  Years ago you had some intelligent things to say about politics. More
                  recently you seem interested in getting attention by driving an ice cream
                  truck around Capitol Hill and writing books with chapters titled: "Do The
                  Democrats Still Drink From A Sippy Cup and Leave The Light On," as you all
                  the while promte the Democratic ticket. You like to hang out with Madonna
                  and God and will get on board with any candidate you think might win. Oh,
                  and you once registered a fichus tree as a candidate for Congress. That was
                  useful.

                  In school, I always enjoyed the class clown, but I would never go to him for
                  political advice. I'm afraid that is what you have become.

                  Actually, what you have become is best summarized in the following
                  paragraph:

                  I have seen the slippery slope that type of behavior leads to in the baby
                  boom generation. First, you start with little chips away at your conscience.
                  You agree to do things that don't seem to directly harm any living thing,
                  actions in which you convince yourself, "I guess I can live with that 'cause
                  the alternative would be worse!" But bit by bit, as you start to abandon
                  what you believe in and compromise your values, you end up being able to
                  rationalize any action. Before long, you give up and head to the middle. You
                  learn that it is safe there. If you strive for complacency and mediocrity,
                  the system will reward you. Promise not to upset the apple cart and you will
                  end up with more money, a nice house, lots of gadgets, and oodles of things.
                  Who wouldn't want that! But all of this compromise � not doing what you know
                  in your heart of hearts to be right � not only destroys you as an
                  individual, it weakens our democracy.[6]

                  Remember those words, Michael? You wrote them. You have become what you
                  vehemently opposed.

                  Ralph Nader's legacy will be exactly what you said it will be: that of a
                  serious and great American who made a difference by saving million of lives.


                  Unless you return to your more effective roots, your legacy will be
                  buffoonery, cheapening the political discourse and disillusioning the next
                  generation.

                  I am reachable by phone or email.

                  Yours,

                  Carl J. Mayer

                  *Carl J. Mayer*, an attorney, volunteered to support the Nader campaign in
                  1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. He can be reached at 609-462-7979 or
                  carlmayer@.... His website is carlmayer.com. His work has appeared
                  in the New York Times, the Harvard Business Review, Newsday, The
                  Philadelphia Inquirer and numerous other publications.
                  [1] See "An Open Letter to God, from Michael Moore," August 13, 2008 at
                  michaelmoore.com
                  [2] "An Open Letter from Moore to Gore," October 31, 2000 at
                  www.michaelmoore.com.
                  [3] "How The Democrats Can Blow It In Six Easy Steps." August 13, 2008,
                  Rolling Stone.
                  [4] "A Final Election Day Letter" November 7, 2000 at michaelmoore.com.
                  [5] "A Final Election Day Letter" November 7, 2000 at michaelmoore.com.
                  [6] "A Final Election Day Letter" November 7, 2000 at michaelmoore.com.

                  On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:

                  > Michael Moore is putting out his new film, "Slacker Rising", on the web
                  > through blip.tv (for free).
                  >
                  > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080905-michael-moore-skips-box-office-film-heads-straight-to-net.html
                  >
                  > "*Slacker Uprising* details Moore's tour of 62 US cities in an attempt to
                  > rally young voters before the presidential election in 2004. Moore says
                  > that
                  > he originally considered releasing the movie in theaters, as he did with
                  > his
                  > 2004 film criticizing the Bush Administration, *Fahrenheit 9/11*. However,
                  > he decided to go the online route instead as a symbol of gratitude to his
                  > fans. "I thought it'd be a nice way to celebrate my 20th year of doing
                  > this," Moore told the Associated
                  > Press<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=12199>.
                  > "And also help get out the vote for November. I've been thinking about what
                  > I want to do to help with the election this year."
                  >
                  > I know Michael Moore and Radiohead have built-in audiences, but it is also
                  > getting people used to these new distribution models.
                  >
                  > Jay
                  >
                  > --
                  > http://jaydedman.com
                  > 917 371 6790
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.