You may have asked yourself from my last post.
This one:
Well why? Why is film3 important? Why is it a thing? I cant tell you what it is for you. I can tell you what it is for me. This is exactly what Id say to any filmmaker and have when they ask about web3.
What Id been prepared for in my filmmaking journey is being able to fundraise in creative ways or within means that are approachable and as Ive grown my family do not require the time I had put in (albeit not the most effective way) networking. That I could be poised to make some sort of financing to make something. Either from nothing or shoot it on a location. I have a lot of scripts that are steeped in everyday life. Short pieces that Id want to have high impact cinematography. More like high art low rez looking pieces. I also want to use animation to tell some stories as well.
Now best case scenario for someone like me with no connections is that if I make something good enough the point is to somehow either make more or sell the intellectual property to have someone else make more. Many ideas, tests, proof of concepts, scripts and just treatments are purchased all the time. Media in general is trying a ton of things but even that makes up a small percentage of the media finally distributed to the public. What we all get to see is an overly filtered experience and for good reason, making movies is expensive. But what's lost in this process is the ability to change the public view. The few indie films that somehow permeate into society and get to the big screens is few, so few.
So where does that leave a vast majority of the filmmakers and creators who exist to make movies? Film festivals had been an answer, used as a calling card for potential filmmakers to be able to get what they make in front of eyes that are looking for this talent. The market flooded with many different festivals both legit and not. For most getting to a far away festival is difficult, if their submission is never shown they wouldn't know. Many others are just income generators taking exorbitant fees for doing essentially nothing for a film except the value in saying it was submitted. The big festivals only have so many spots to give out and with the film world being heavily political its unlikely an unrepped piece or creator will make it anywhere to be seen or reviewed. Festivals do have their merit, its great to have somewhere to just show your film and if its in the home city of your cast and crew its a great end to the experience of making that work. Instead of having to manage a private viewing getting a premiere at a festival can be a really enriching event.
But still, where else is there to show a film once its complete? After festivals had their prominence the internet came into a more mature state. Being able to reach audiences became as easy as hitting upload and mostly doing marketing from your PC and now your phone. New paradigms were created and empires built off the ad generated revenue and revenue share. It changed much of our viewing habits and cannot be understated the cultural effect it had on the world. But did it make it that much better? Not really. The ease of use of the internet meant that where there were more gatekeepers there was a new set, that would let you show whatever you want but would make it difficult for just anything to make it up the ranks in viewership. Ads became a tool in again controlling the narrative of what was to be shown and who was to show it. While advancements had been made for people of under represented communities it was still a niche, remains so today. The deals in the end didn't change much, theatrical was mostly replaced by streaming and the margins got tighter, budgets got smaller. The only things that make it to the big screen are epic spectacles (which we now may see change, but probably not) .
Enter the rise of NFT’s and web3. During the pandemic so much of what we know as normal changed. So much of how and what we consume changed. Digital ownership was a subject on the table, what that meant to potential customers had shifted. What also changed is a view on authorship. Royalties were now something an artist could actually want for and get simply because it was built into the mechanism on which something sold vis a vis smart contracts. Distribution of funds within a crypto environment was as simple as a click and the setup, although not pretty, was free to do relatively. A new market came about. A bull market in the digital art realm. As far as film the pandemic only escalated the view on NFT’s, there had been artists already experimenting with the tech and doing their own work. Making pieces of work that for how much they were sold and traded for previously today would be an epic payday.
Now you may ask wtf this has to do with why film3…. Understandably. Innovative people used this mechanic to sidestep many parts of the established film industry. From fundraising to distribution. NFT’s became their own currency. Not just the status symbols of a high priced piece of art but previsualization, collectibles, generated pieces and even stills from the film itself had new capabilities to be an actual money generating item. With the added advent of metaverse events there was new emphasis on giving people a digital experience either with a work or with things surrounding that work. As it stands with this post there has been one true success story. Calladita did what was thought to be rather impossible. Piece together from many communities and several individuals a budget to make a feature length film. Its in post as of now and set top go to festivals as far as I've been privy to. But its there and breaking down that process with the current market conditions is a new challenge. That's a whole different post.
Why? Why do this? Every single other method of financing a film has its significant pitfalls. Traditional financing has issues being a lopsided deal weighing heavily to an unsustainable ecosystem for the creator. If you only make narrative works and hope to fill your time making films, you’d hopefully also be wealthy. Most do what I had done and work whatever crew jobs to get enough contacts or favors that you can maybe cobble together a short. Maybe it wont financially sink you in the process, almost definitely wont make back any of the money you had to spend to just have the movie. Then its festivals as a most likely route. If all goes how it goes for 95% of all work submitted you're a year past the finish of your film and nothing has happened with it. You're still sitting with your idea and now have had all these doors closed on the project. At any time in this process you could have raised the funds doing a Kickstarter, which is not far from raising with NFT’s. But there's a percentage you're paying to someone else and the people who were gracious enough to fund your movie have nothing to show for it. Maybe some stickers or a t-shirt, at the least a download of the thing they put their money to making. Still leaves you sitting with a finished film and a festival run that even as much fun and enriching as it can be doesnt put your film on a screen. So you turn to whats left. Self distribution.
I separate this section for a few reasons. One being that I really do appreciate the attempts made to bring cinematic content to all people. Its not easy task to have a platform that attracts advertisers and the content that can really help make those partnerships worth while for both parties. Even harder to make a subscription based platform that's only goal is to deliver video work to their subscribers that makes them want to keep their membership. The overhead involved with delivering and also producing this is a gigantic task. Somehow though not much has changed from the days of theatrical being king. Payouts and residuals have shrunk, very crafty accounting has made it nearly impossible to turn a profit in the film business unless you are incredibly lucky while also working your absolute ass off. Hopefully not demolishing your life as a result.
In this realm there's free, AVOD, VOD and streaming. Theatrical has its own measure of how something performs, very few films without at least one A list talent ever get major distribution anymore. Even with an A list talent on the production it still makes most sense for companies who decide distribution to have it on a platform where they can also license that work and not have to invest in getting your work to theaters. Lowest investment possible to maximize returns. That being said the options all have their own kick in the head. Starting from last streaming has always had some murky numbers, the viewing habits almost never revealed except to say something broke a record that no one might have known existed. Most never truly know how well their work did on a streaming platform. Especially the larger ones, an indicator might be something like the platform willing to fund the next work. Also rare. The next two have the deepest roots. The beginning of digital was a mostly VOD (Video on demand) experience. Taking the days of Blockbuster and Mr. Video (for my south Brooklyn comrades, but local store) to a new height by eliminating the absolutely euphoric experience of walking around a store to find something to watch. Now AVOD (Advertising Video on Demand) has basically replaced what will be television, if it hasn't already. The idea of choosing what you want but being inconvenienced by a few ads placed in a spot to interrupt your viewing and pay the bills to the pipelines that are serving this content is how TV had operated for decades. Just a new way. There's more transparency here. VOD usually shows metrics on how much you’ll be paid for whatever viewing habits and revenue generated off your work. If you make something that resonates it will show, AVOD operates much the same. Then there's free, so many free platforms that operate much alike AVOD but are open to all creators to freely post whatever fits in the guidelines. Like the last two if you make something that resonates it will show. But like the other two to make money here the work needs to resonate, you need to have the numbers. Even with heavy numbers on all of this its still the same value proposition. Whole idea, IP and all belongs to the platform. The eyeballs driving your numbers could easily be pushed to watch something else especially if the work you’ve given to them despite your best efforts doesn't impact in the way you’d hoped.
This is a pretty dreary picture. Why does anyone do this? Why do we need to make stories and compose pretty images? Because despite all of this I and everyone whose been in any kind of position to sell their work in what we now call film2 would do it to have that work go somewhere better than nowhere. You also as a creative professional have to set yourself up in a way to maintain your life. Even the tops of their game have other forms of income that if their creative life disappeared they could live a life. Film3 is another way, a way of making independent works that can have its own unique life. The two ways this is possible is by either being the community or fostering the community. Being the community is being a leader, much like priests or cult leaders. You drive the culture, all of what is is because of you. People follow not the project but you the person, many of the current nft projects dealing in high volumes or high ticket prices have a charismatic individual at the top who leads it all. No matter the team size the one person in the middle guiding the circus could bring the whole thing with them all the way from zero to moonshot. Then there's fostering the community. Where an idea is so powerful and important to the fans of it that all you need to do is keep feeding them more. Allowing their take on the idea to come to fruition, allowing that to be canon and share in the income this new piece makes. This was only possible in film2 involving a lot of lawyers and managers to negotiate terms. Many other methods would need to be in place to monitor or process the cashflow. Hoping that all goes to plan and nothing needs to be litigated either by negligence or some other dark forces. Film3 doesnt this with a few clicks. Makes the process a very binary procedure, theres transparency of the wallets involved to know absolutely everything from day one of how the money flows. It has its issues, not unlike traditional financing. Nothing is perfect. But at the end of a successful film3 run, even if you strike out at festivals you have a solid base to sell your next idea. If you foster this community or lead it as the bastion of why it exists then they will be around for the next thing. Make your community part of your budget and theyll stay to make the next budget with you. Most of the web3 distributors have fans gaining for their influence and fandom. What web3/film3 do better than previously is celebrate the fans or community.
Can you make a feature film in film3 and be profitable? I don't know, because its takes being at it full time just like every other time in history. But if successful you do hold more cards than you ever did, a successful film3 project can stay in the web3 ecosystem and keep making money. Can reach outside into other non web3 platforms and make deals that edge more towards benefitting the fans of that project and the creator at whatever time investment they want to have in that projects future. Film3 hasn't changed much to how hard it is to get funding for a film, nothing can change that, but it has changed what that looks like for a creator once the film is complete. If what you do already works then stay in it, you’ve worked hard for it. If what you do as an artist isn't as fulfilling I dare you to come to a twitter space for the film3squad or any of the other film3 spaces on twitter. Listen to stories of why people are there and what they hope to do with this new tech. How their experiences as varied their beginning have then end up looking to blockchain to do something they haven't found possible before. We welcome you with open arms.
