Category Archives: Film

Film news with a particular orientation towards Australia.

Kiwi Post-Production House: From Epics to Micro-Budget Works

Of the five Peter Jackson companies in Wellington, Park Road Post wins the prize for the snazziest HQ.

As each company started up, it took over warehouses or other spaces available in the suburb of Miramar. But Park Road, which debuted with 2003’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” was built from the ground up. The massive building includes two large mixing theaters (where editors can sit next to mixers, and music and dialogue editors have their station); a smaller pre-mix room; three DCI projected DI/Grading theaters and a large picture department alongside the sound department.

There is also a 170-seat screening room with art-deco figures in deep blue and gold (one worker described it as “Hearst style,” a reference to Hearst Castle in San Simeon) and twinkling stars of Southern Hemisphere on the ceiling.

Starting in 1941, the New Zealand government oversaw post-production for local filmmakers, via its National Film Unit. But it decided a decade ago to sell the facilities to Australia. Jackson realized the loss of services and infrastructure could be a fatal blow to the country’s film industry. So Park Road was born.

Park Road does 40 projects a year, handling post-production on works ranging from big-budget pieces like “The Adventures of Tintin” and “Master and Commander,” to micro-budget local films, as well as documentaries and restoration work.

“We don’t think of it as a business first. It’s about creating something great,” says g.m. Cameron Harland.

He adds that their constant challenge is to look and sound better, to make tech advancements and upgrades. But supervising senior re-recording mixer Michael Hedges adds: “The enemy to good sound is to worry about technology. You have to worry about what’s on the screen. Technology has to match that.” The staff also includes five toppers: Dean Watkins, head of production; Vicki Jackways, marketing; Louise Baker, corporate services; Amy Shand, picture; and John Neill, sound. PRP generally sends Phil Oatley (head of technology) and Ian Bidgood (technical director and color scientist) to NAB.

The Park Road team has been going to places including Los Angeles to lure production to NZ. Any pushback from Hollywood? No, says Harland, “because you can’t hard-sell something like this. You let the work speaks for itself.”

Tim Gray – Variety – October 22, 2014

Weta Workshop is Made Up of Wellington’s Eclectic, Equal-Rights Designers

Weta Workshop is the oldest of Peter Jackson’s five companies, and the hardest to define. And that’s the way they like it.

Richard Taylor, who runs Weta Workshop with his wife, Tania Rodger, believes in creative diversity. He has won Oscars in three categories: two for makeup, two in visual effects and one for costume design. It reflects his philosophy, “We can only survive if we innovate every day.” The company built 48,000 individual items (props, costumes, etc.) for “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. For the “Hobbit” trio, the team produced 11,862 prosthetics, with 5,493 of these just for the Dwarves. Approximately 4 tons of silicone was used to make facial prosthetics for all the characters. In the past year, WW has worked on 30 projects, including six films, plus numerous TV shows and videogames. “It adds to the tapestry of our staff’s lives,” says Taylor. “It’s added to the richness.” Recent projects include the final “Hobbit” film; costuming and prosthetics for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”; designs for “Godzilla” and “Hercules”; merchandise for “DOTA 2”; and materials for films based in China, Hungary, India and the United States.

In association with ITV and Pukeko Pictures, WW is working on the TV relaunch of “Thunderbirds.” There will be 26 half-hours to bow in 2015; scripts are written in the U.S., with voices recorded in the U.K., filming miniatures in New Zealand and animation in Taiwan.

Jackson is a third shareholder in the company, with Taylor and Rodger as the management and creative force behind it. Taylor is managing director.

During Variety’s visit, WW staffers were working on museum installations, a sculpture garden, film projects and books (designed and written inhouse, with 16 published so far). Conducting Variety on a tour through the multi-level maze of workshops, Taylor introduces each space matter-of-factly: “This is the sword- grinding room; this is the sculpting department; this is the paint department,” and he points out machines that do robotic 3D milling, printing, laser-cutting, plasma- cutting and foam latex, urethane casting and riveting machines. “We built machines that can build components,” he says simply.

There is a room devoted to facial castings, with walls lined with face masks: the “Lord of the Rings” and “Hobbit” actors, Meryl Streep, Vincent Price and dozens of others.

It may be matter-of-fact to him, but to a visitor, it seems like a labyrinth designed for people with ADD: Diverse, high-energy and magical. Asked how many square feet/meters in the building, Taylor laughs, “Oh, I have no idea.” When Taylor started on 2001’s “The Lord of the Rings,” Weta Workshop had a staff of 158, only 38 of whom had any film experience.

He promotes the “Jack and Jill of all trades” mentality. There is a roughly 50-50 split of men and women among the core crew of 55. That’s also true when the staff is augmented to work on multiple projects, with the additions ranging from 70 to 240.

Taylor is proud that no one had formal training. Some are first-time sculptors he trained. And he’s also self-taught: He started sculpting margarine, then moved on to clay.There is also Weta Cave, a shop that sells objects and offers a $20 tour of the workshop. It’s the only public access to the five companies. Taylor says it was inspired “by watching busloads of people looking at this old dilapidated warehouse. I couldn’t stand it,” so he wanted to give them a positive connection.

Among other key staffers at Weta Workshop: General manager David Wilks, Workshop supervisor Rob Gillies, head of production Grant Bensley, head of design Rik Athorne, head of consumer products Mike Gonzales, head of tourism Jake Downing and executive assistant to Taylor plus g.m. Ri Streeter.

Rodger also supervises the Roxy theater, a refurbished cinema in the Miramar neighborhood that shows first-run films and classics. Taylor describes the interior as “sci-fi deco with a Rockefeller twist” (as in Rockefeller Center).

Weta Workshop also designs and produces collectibles with 500-800 copies of each piece, having made 1 million in all over the years. “It’s a tiny collectors market,” he says, but enough that “it lets us do fine-art sculpting for a living.” Enough to justify the cost, “but I would probably do them anyway. You’re interacting with the fans.

Fans is almost a misnomer. These are people who are driven by a love of literature, the arts and creativity.” Many of them go to seven or eight conventions a year.

He appreciates the Oscars he and the others at Wellington have won because the wins are an exclamation mark to their work. “It’s endorsing our team and showing that we have a showing that we have a place in the world.” New Zealand definitely has a place in the world, and as the Weta brand expands, its global footprint gets even larger and more impressive.

Tim Gray – Variety – October 22, 2014

Peter Jackson’s Companies Offer Every Step for Filmmakers

In the past two decades, Peter Jackson and his team have created five companies to service every aspect of filmmaking. These are among the most accomplished but misunderstood film companies in the world.

That’s because each was started without any hoopla. Ever since Jackson’s 1994 “Heavenly Creatures,” his films have gotten more ambitious, creatively and technically. So these companies were created to meet the needs of Jackson and the growing film industry in New Zealand. And after they were born, each started working immediately.

Even though filmmakers such as James Cameron and Steven Spielberg have been enthusiastic collaborators, many in the industry are confused about the structures and goals there.

Aside from Weta Digital, now celebrating its 20th anniversary, there are four other companies: Weta Workshop, Park Road Post Production, Stone Street Studios and Portsmouth Road film-equipment company.

The various toppers, with typical Kiwi humor, sat down in Wellington with Variety to dispel some misperceptions.

  1. The five companies are not designed solely to work on Jackson’s films. In the past year, for example, Park Road worked on 40 projects; Weta Workshop contributed to 30.
  2. They are not just for blockbusters. With Jackson’s six Tolkien films and Cameron’s “Avatar” franchise, the companies have gotten typecast. But this year their workload included lots of TV, a documentary, a $100,000 NZ indie and film restoration.
  3. They can handle every aspect of a production, but the soup-to-nuts approach is not required. Each of the five companies can be responsible for its specialty (design, editing, sound, VFX, etc.) throughout the life of a project — or can contribute just a few weeks’ work. The five sometimes work together, but often separately.

4 It’s not necessary to relocate. The companies in Wellington have recently worked on productions based in India, South Africa, China and the U.S. For “Tintin,” they connected daily with Spielberg, who was in the Aegean.

Park Road Post general manager Cameron Harland sums it up: “We want people to know that New Zealand is open for business.” Weta Digital: Peter Jackson’s VFX Company is About ‘Immersive Filmmaking’ Tim Gray – Variety – October 22, 2014 Joe Letteri, the company’s director and senior visual effects supervisor, flanked by Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson Weta Digital is observing its 20th anniversary this year, but the celebration is low- key, because the team is too busy to rest on its laurels.

Top priorities include “The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies,” the culmination of 17 years and six films in the J.R.R. Tolkien canon; “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” slated to bow in 2016; and the upcoming “Avatar” films. Then on to other projects, both large and small.

Peter Jackson has five companies in Wellington, but Weta Digital is the best known, thanks to its visual-effects breakthrough creations such as Gollum, Caesar, Smaug and the Na’vis.

Joe Letteri, the company’s director and senior visual effects supervisor, says, “If we can shoot it live-action, great. If not, we’ll do it digitally.” (Letteri is in the above photo, flanked by Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson.) The company’s executive producer David Conley adds that Weta Digital is unlike traditional visual-effects houses. “We try to give filmmakers a comfortable space to make their own movie. We don’t want them to feel trapped by the process. We don’t tell you how to shoot the movie; we help you get to where you want to go.” The tools are constantly evolving. Techniques for creating Gollum got much more sophisticated between the 2001 “Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring” and the first “Hobbit” film. As a sign of the growth, the company created 24 digital characters for the first “Hobbit,” and about 60 for the second. The third film, still in progress, will be a quantum leap above that.

Though the tools are different, Letteri says that the team — including VFX supervisors Dan Lemmon, Eric Saindon and Guy Williams — uses the same process as 20 years ago: “We meet every day. We run this like a film set, with dailies, constantly revising stuff. Everything is reassembled in new ways, using new techniques, but it’s traditional: It’s story-driven, and it’s about characters.”

Weta Digital was founded by Jackson, Richard Taylor and Jamie Selkirk to create 14 effects for the 1994 “Heavenly Creatures.” Two years later, they created a then- astonishing 400 effects for “The Frighteners.” In the past two decades, the company credits include the six Tolkien movies, “King Kong,” “Avatar,” and this year’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” and the final “Hobbit.” The company, 75% owned by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, employs about 800-1,000 individuals, depending on the number of projects. It’s located in the Wellington suburb of Miramar, in seven reconverted buildings, including a former home for wayward girls, a one-time dairy and record-pressing studio. All of these buildings are connected to each other, and linked to Jackson’s other four companies via a private fiber loop.

One example of Weta’s work in character development is dragon Smaug’s wings in the first “Hobbit,” which became like hands for the second. Weta Digital and Jackson liked the idea of giving Smaug the ability to hold onto the platforms and pillars in Erebor.

One breakthrough was the invention of Massive software for the 2001 “LOTR.” Massive enabled crowd movement in which each person or creature has a “brain.” So 200 horses can gallop together, but each will have distinct movements, and that gave credibility to the epic battle scenes.

The motion-capture creation of Gollum was another turning point.

Human and creature faces were challenging since there are so many interconnected facial muscles, not to mention skin colors and textures.

The key came in designing King Kong for the 2005 film. Computer artists designed a gorilla’s skeleton, then added a muscle system, then fat and tissue, skin, skin color, then fur. The next target was to do the same with humans, which happened with the 2009 “Avatar.” The Weta team are quick to dispel actors’ fear that they will be digitally replaced.

Letteri says of Andy Serkis’ performances, “We took what he did and heightened it.” To create the Na’vi version of Sam Worthington, the Weta team asked themselves, “Can we match the performance and get Sam’s eyes, expression, appearance and emotions?” The answer was yes, and there will be more breakthroughs on the next three “Avatar” films. And, on the creature side, Benedict Cumberbatch worked with them to create the physical and vocal characterization of Smaug.

Conley adds that Weta wants to enhance, not replace, the actual performances and below-the-line work (ranging from design to visual effects).

“We like to work with designers and have them build the costume, for example, so we can understand their intent and things like how the fabric moves. We never change their vision; we just give a digital interpretation of their vision.” Though the digital world can be confusing to many, Weta Digital folks say it’s all about collaborating with filmmakers and giving them new tools.

Letteri dubs it “immersive filmmaking.”

Tim Gray – Variety – October 22, 2014

$2 million-plus pledged for Oz docs

In a single, extraordinary day more than $2 million in donations was pledged to seven Australian feature-length documentaries on Wednesday. The scale of the financial support stunned the organisers of the first Good Pitch Australia event, which aids social impact documentaries.

Equally surprised were the recipients. “I am speechless,” said producer Marguerite Grey, who is collaborating with director Belinda Mason on Constance on the Edge,which looks at the struggles of a Sudanese refugee, Constance Okot, and her six children in Wagga Wagga. The docu was the biggest single recipient with pledges of more than $500,000 for the production and an initial outreach strategy which includes hosted regional film screenings and education and training resources.

Screen Australia provided $15,000 for research and development in March and in September Screen NSW gave $10,000 for filming a trailer for Good Pitch and for broadcasters to help secure project finance. However the ABC and SBS rejected the producer’s initial requests for investment, stating the project did not suit their programming priorities.

Grey was overwhelmed by the responses to their Good Pitch presentation from the philanthropic foundations, private philanthropists and corporate foundations who were among the audience of 300 at the Opera House.

“Following our seven-minute pitch, Susan Mackinnon from Documentary Australia Foundation, who is executive producer of Constance on the Edge, kicked off the table discussion by announcing philanthropic support of $100,000 had already been pledged. A foundation on our table generously added $25,000 and then someone at a microphone said they represented two donors who had pledged $50,000 – all within a few minutes.

“Then a man stepped up and pledged $200,000 to audible gasps from many in the room including Constance, and it kept going from there. It was as though Susan had struck a match and our funding took off like a grass fire. Many people including other filmmakers made very personal pledges for a range of amounts, $1,000, $20,000, $5,000, with some saying it was because they understood the difficulties of being an Australian with a refugee background. Suddenly our struggle to stay in production had ended and we knew we could make our film.”

Good Pitch is the international documentary forum devised by BRITDOC and Sundance Institute Documentary Film Program. Good Pitch Australia is an initiative of Shark Island Institute and Documentary Australia Foundation.

More than 150 grants were made by philanthropic foundations and individual donors on the day. Among those who committed their support are NAB, The Fledgling Fund, Australian Women Donor’s Network, GetUp, YMCA, The Funding Network, The Caledonia Foundation, White Ribbon, The Westpac Group, The George Institute for Global Health, Diabetes Australia, Inside Film, Dumbo Feather, Lock The Gate, Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, AIME, the Sydney Film Festival, Chicken & Egg Pictures, Chicago Media Project, Impact Partners, Philanthropy Australia, Pro Bono Australia, Documentary Australia Foundation and the Shark Island Institute.

By Don Groves INSIDEFILM [Fri 10/10/2014]

More Here;

Home

Box-Office Crash: What Caused Hollywood’s Miserable Summer?

It’s official: North American summer revenue barely cracks $4 billion, an eight-
year low and down 15 percent from 2013

To understand the upside-down summer at the box office, consider that Sony’s 22 Jump Street, made for about $50 million, ended up grossing nearly as much in North America as The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the studio’s $200 million-plus tentpole that represents the type of movie on which Hollywood long has relied to drive summer slates. 22 Jump Street earned $193.3 million domestically, versus $202.8 million for the Spider-Man sequel (Neighbors, another R-rated comedy, also prospered).

All the usual rules were tossed out as comedies, female-fueled films and Guardians of the Galaxy, the season’s top-grossing title despite being released in the dog days of August, were left to make up for underperforming franchise pics. “Ultimately, it comes down to content, and the content just wasn’t as good as it has been in previous years,” says entertainment analyst Eric Handler of MKM Partners. Adds one studio executive, “many of the tentpoles that underperformed were more of the same and way too long. People ate up Guardians because it was a departure from the norm.”

Domestic revenue from May 2 through Labor Day came in at an estimated $4.05 billion, an eight-year low and, when accounting for inflation, a 17-year low.

Moreover, revenue was down 15 percent from last summer’s record $4.75 billion, while attendance tumbled more than 5 percent. Not one film has crossed $300 million domestically for the first time since 2001, though Guardians of the Galaxy will ultimately reach that mark (its domestic cume is just north of $280 million).

If there’s any solace, it’s that the international marketplace remains strong, although the World Cup hurt box office returns in key soccer markets. Nor were there major debacles akin to summer 2013 disasters The Lone Ranger and After Earth. Still, Sony appears to have put its Amazing Spider-Man franchise on ice after ASM2 topped out at $708.3 million, which included only $202.9 million domestic.

Paramount’s Transformers: Age of Extinction also hit a franchise low in the U.S., but it has amassed north of $1.07 billion globally after becoming the top film of all time in China with $331 million. “There is no question the movie business is cyclical,” says Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore. Age of Extinction’s lengthy running time of 165 minutes no doubt hurt it in the U.S. (the previous installments were shorter).

Warner Bros., usually the dominant summer player, saw its revenue drop a massive 39.5 percent from 2013 as of Aug. 1. Godzilla, the studio’s top earner, grossed $507.9 million globally, while Tom Cruise’s big-budget Edge of Tomorrow finished with $364 million. Disappointments included Adam Sandler’s Blended and Clint Eastwood’s Jersey Boys. “Our summer did not live up to our expectations,” says Warners distribution chief Dan Fellman, “though Tammy will be profitable. We’ll also have a very strong fourth quarter.”

Disney, without a summer animated film for the first time in a decade, did great with Maleficent and Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy.

Fox, on a winning streak, will win the market-share honor thanks to X-Men: Days of Future Past ($745.4 million), Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ($611.5 million) and The Fault in Our Stars ($286.5 million), among other titles. “All of our movies were fresh and well-received. That’s ultimately what matters,” said Fox domestic distribution chief Chris Aronson. “Give the people more of what they want.”

Females powered both Fault and Maleficent as well as Universal’s Lucy, suggesting an underserved demo. Maleficent, a boon for star Angelina Jolie, grossed $748.7 million worldwide, the No. 2 title of the summer after Age of Extinction.

If there’s a common refrain on Wall Street and in Hollywood as the season ends, it’s that next summer will restore balance with Avengers: Age of Ultron, Fast & Furious 7, Pixar’s Inside Out and Universal’s Jurassic World. But with so many entertainment options now vying for eyeballs, the fear is that summer 2014 is the start of a new reality. “You have to answer two critical questions: Do I have to see it now? And do I have to see it on the big screen?” says Walt Disney Studios chairman Alan Horn. “If the answer is ‘no’ to either, you are in trouble.”

01/09/2014 by Pamela McClintock – THR

Piracy crackdown misses the real crime

Hollywood demands government help so it can keep ripping us off.

Advice from Google and others that piracy is primarily a “pricing and availability” problem has fallen on deaf ears, the government would rather listen to the likes of The leaked Online Copyright Infringement discussion paper, obtained last Friday by news website Crikey, is pretty much what we expected from Australia’s federal government. The opening statement pays lip service to ensuring that “content is accessed easily and at a reasonable price”. The rest is dedicated to outlining harsher penalties and technical countermeasures which are doomed to fail.

It would be great to see Attorney-General George Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull jump to the defence of Australian consumers – whom they supposedly represent – as quickly as they jump to the defence of the powerful copyright lobby group. Advice from Google and others that piracy is primarily a “pricing and availability” issue has fallen on deaf ears, the government would rather listen to the likes of Village Roadshow.

The Online Copyright Infringement discussion paper feels like the work of a government which wants to be seen to be acting, rather than a government which actually wants to address the underlying problem. Where’s the discussion paper considering the impact of this year’s Foxtel Game of Thrones deal on consumer choice, or what might happen if Murdoch gains control over both HBO and Foxtel?

While we’re at it, where’s the discussion paper considering the role of parallel import laws in the digital age and the impact of geoblocking on consumer price gouging when it comes to entertainment? Last year’s IT pricing enquiry had a lot to say about Microsoft and Adobe but very little to say about Hollywood.

Just like region-coding on discs, geoblocking exists so movie studios can get away with offering Australians less and charging us more simply because we’re Australian. Village Roadshow.

Rather than addressing this issue, it seems the government is happy to support a ban on circumventing “technological measures” – which might include geoblocking – as part of the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

It’s been explained time and again how easy it is to bypass any technological countermeasures put forward to thwart piracy and geo-dodging. You don’t need to be a geek to master the use of proxies and Virtual Private Networks in order to side-step the internet service provider-level site blocking proposed in the discussion paper.

There are even browser plugins which let you beat site filtering with a single click.

Most people are prepared to do the right thing given the chance, unless they feel like they’re being ripped off. Content providers have been screwing Australians for years.

Now that consumers have finally found a way to fight back, the industry is demanding government help so it can continue to screw us.

Rather than put up laughably ineffective roadblocks to appease its powerful friends, the government would better serve the people by addressing the reasons why we break the law. Until it does, people won’t respect rules which are designed to ensure that Australians are treated as second-class citizens.

Adam Turner – SMH – July 28, 2014 – 10:37AM

TV’s Revolution in Story

Called “the best script doctor in the movie industry,” John Truby serves as a story consultant for major studios and production companies worldwide, and has been a script doctor on more than 1,800 movies, sitcoms and television dramas for the likes of Disney, Universal, Sony Pictures, FOX, HBO, Alliance Atlantis, Paramount, BBC, MTV and more.

When I travel the world teaching story classes, writers and producers don’t ask me how to write a Hollywood superhero movie. They want to know how to write shows that come close to the incredible quality of the drama they see on American television in shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Homeland, House of Cards and Game of Thrones.

Indeed, a revolution in story has been unfolding in American TV drama for the past ten years. It is as significant as the rise of the novel in the mid-1700s, the shift in theater to psychological realism in the late1800s, the development of film in the early 1900s and the emergence of the video game as a story medium in the 1980s and ‘90s.

What do the best-written shows on television have in common? Well, the first thing you notice is that every one is a serial. And that makes all the difference. Every revolutionary move in character and plot stems from the emergence of the serial form.

In the old days, TV consisted almost entirely of stand-alone episodes. Writers told a complete dramatic story in forty-four minutes. For example, the criminal committed a murder in the first scene, and the cops caught him in the last. The following week, they told the same story with slightly different circumstances. This guaranteed that the medium as a whole could be nothing more than a factory of generic story product.

With the introduction of the remote and cable, the serial form was born on television.

Now shows had multiple main characters, with their own weaknesses and desires, and they didn’t solve their problems at the end of one episode, or even fifteen. In story terms, this meant, above all, interweaving multiple story lines over many episodes. No longer confined to a forty-four-minute straightjacket, a writer could get to a deeper truth by using film’s unique crosscutting ability to compare and contrast characters and storylines.

This had a huge structural effect on the TV story, because it meant that the unit of measure of the TV show was no longer the episode — it was the season. The canvas on which the writer worked became ten times as long as a feature film, and ten times as complex.

So, it’s no coincidence that the revolution in story occurred hand in hand with TV coming into its own as an art form. But how precisely did the serial form revolutionize the TV story in both character and plot? Let’s begin with the main character of the show, since the first principle of great storytelling is that plot comes from character.

Much has been made of the fact that serials sparked a fundamental shift from hero to anti-hero. Anti-hero, as it is commonly used, is a bit of a misnomer, and it obscures the revolutionary nature of these characters. Technically, an anti-hero is simply the opposite of the classic hero in some way. He, or she, may be a bumbler, a holy fool or a rebel.

But the way most critics define the term when talking about the leads in the great TV shows since The Sopranos is that anti-heroes are bad guys. Not evil, but bad, and therefore unlikable in some way. He may be a killer like Tony Soprano (The Sopranos), a liar and philanderer like Don Draper (Mad Men), a meth dealer and a killer like Walter White (Breaking Bad) or a Machiavellian schemer and killer like Frank Underwood (House of Cards).

But these characters are not just bad — that’s simplistic and could not produce great stories for long. They are complex, which produces far better stories.

Now, the word complex is often thrown around in writing circles, and no one bothers to define it structurally. Most people think it refers to psychological contradictions, which all these characters certainly possess. But what it really means is that these characters have moral contradictions. So they all have a highly compartmentalized moral code that constantly tests them to the depths of their being.

Still, these complex lead characters, though crucial to the revolution in story, could not produce shows of such high quality over so many episodes and seasons. That comes from the character web of the story, probably the single-most important factor in creating a great show. Simply stated, the character web has to do with how all the characters in a story weave together as a single fabric, both connecting and contrasting. A show with a unique character web — in which each character is set in proper structural opposition to the others — is the only way writers can create great stories for several years.

When serials replaced stand-alone shows as the standard of television drama, they didn’t just deepen the main character. They radically increased the number of characters who could drive storylines, in effect showing the audience a mini-society.

Emmy-nominated shows like Game of Thrones and Downton Abbey can track upwards of thirty or more important characters. This places a tremendous burden on the show’s creators and calls up another critical point: the audience will become completely lost unless the character web is highly organized.

The necessity of organizing the characters increases the quality of serials because it means that each mini-society is determined by some kind of system that controls people under the surface and even enslaves them. In The Sopranos it was the Mafia. In Mad Men it’s a consumer culture that glorifies a false American Dream. In Game of Thrones and Downton Abbey it’s a rigid patriarchal class structure.

In many of the best serials, writers use another critical technique in designing the character web: they highlight and explore the moral element in life, both within and among characters. Starting with the central moral problem of the hero, they make all other characters some variation of that problem. They construct a field of fire where all the characters must traverse morally dangerous ground.

This gives a show two additional strengths. First, even the minor characters have complexity, so each is individually compelling, while collectively they produce knockout power. Second, each episode is packed with plot: the writers tease the audience with a moral challenge in the opening and then relentlessly turn the screws until the final scene.

Shows like Breaking Bad, Homeland and CBS’s The Good Wife (nominated in 2011 and 2012 for Outstanding Drama Series and, in my view, the best-written show on broadcast television) have put a unique twist on the moral character web, one that has consistently generated great stories, episode after episode, season after season.

The story world is, in some form, a Darwinian state of nature in which the characters are forced to make nearly impossible moral decisions. The fundamental question each week is: Can these characters remain human, and decent, while they struggle to survive?

Shows like Game of Thrones and House of Cards flip this technique. They are not about how to live a good life in a morally challenging world. They are about winning the game. In fact, the most revolutionary aspect of Game of Thrones has been its willingness to kill off its heroes — most notably in the shocking “Rains of Castamere” episode — largely because, in acting morally, they were also being stupid.

The move to the serial also expanded and deepened the plot of the TV story. Many observers have commented that this is a case of back to the future, to the serials of Charles Dickens and the tremendous plot density of the nineteenth-century French novel.

But the serials of TV drama have a fundamental difference from their predecessors: they are long-form narratives married to single event drama. The viewer enjoys both dense and surprising plot over the season as well as heart-stopping dramatic punch in each individual episode. The power of this combination to seduce and stimulate the viewer cannot be overestimated.

With the rise of the serial, the single biggest plot challenge for showrunners and their writing staffs became exponentially more difficult — and more compelling. It was no longer: How do you construct a tight and surprising episode? It was: How do you segment the plot and sequence the episodes over an entire season?

Again, the moral construct of the character web has often shown the way. The main technique top TV dramas like Breaking Bad and The Good Wife use to structure their episodes and seasons is to sequence the difficult moral challenges their heroes face. Breaking Bad’s creator–executive producer Vince Gilligan and writers like George Mastras and Thomas Schnauz are geniuses at this technique. By introducing Walt (Bryan Cranston) as a moral everyman, they were able to sequence the plot not just on the increased opposition he faced, but on his heightened moral challenges.

Each episode tracked both an escalation of trouble for Walt and a moral decision that was more complicated than the one that came before.

As this revolution in story plays out in television — and television takes over from film as the most influential and far-reaching entertainment medium in the world — we may see the revolution affect film as well. For years, Hollywood has made superhero movies for eleven months of the year, while releasing a handful of Oscar-worthy dramas in December. But no one is fooled anymore. Ten years of TV dramas telling the best stories in the world has the top acting, writing and directing talent clamoring to join the party.

Now it just so happens that in television, writers control the medium, and they are acknowledged to be the authors of their shows. So the astounding quality of writer-driven serials has quietly been exposing the absurdity of the auteur theory, which maintains that the director, not the writer, is the author of a film.

The best TV series — both within an episode and throughout a season — are all about story. The more a film or TV show is based on a well told story, as opposed to visual spectacle and detail, the more its authorship is based on the writer, not the director.

In the days of stand-alone TV, it was easy to distinguish the boring visuals of the small screen from the grandiose spectacle of film epics and thus depreciate television.

But again, things have changed. Television serials, in just one season, are far more epic than any movie, and they are filmed with just as much visual flair. With such great storytelling, no one would dream of claiming that the director is the author of a top TV drama. We can only hope that one day movies will see the light.

If you love story as much as I do, living through this revolution in TV drama has been an incredible ride. The lone drawback, of course, is finding time to watch all those great shows.

http://truby.com – July Newsletter

Leaked Paper Reveals Aussie Anti-Piracy Crackdown Musings

A leaked discussion paper has revealed Australian government musings surrounding a potential online piracy crackdown. Among them, changing the law to undermine a landmark 2012 court ruling which protected ISP iiNet from the infringements of its users, and new legislation to allow for ISP-level blocking of ‘pirate’ sites.

In common with all countries heavily involved with the distribution of U.S.-sourced entertainment products, Australia us under continuous pressure to do something about the online piracy phenomenon. Much of the negotiations have Attorney-General George Brandis at their core, with the Senator regularly being accused of lacking transparency. This week Aussie news outlet Crikey obtained (subscription) a leaked copy of a discussion paper in which Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull seek industry feedback on new anti-piracy proposals.

The discussion paper

Dated July 2014, the paper begins by outlining the Government’s perception of the piracy threat, noting that all players – from content creators to ISPs and consumers – have a role to play in reducing the illegal consumption of content.

It continues with details of schemes operating in the United States (Six-Strikes), UK (VCAP) and New Zealand which aim to develop consumer attitudes through education and mitigation. Inevitably, however, the paper turns to legislation, specifically what can be tweaked in order to give movie studios and record labels the tools they need to reduce infringement

ISP liability

The 2012 High Court ruling in the iiNet case signaled the end of movie and TV studio litigation against service providers. With their dream of holding ISPs responsible for the actions of their pirating users in tatters, copyright holders would need new tools to pursue their aims. It’s clear that Brandis now wants to provide those via a change in the law.

“The Government believes that even when an ISP does not have a direct power to prevent a person from doing a particular infringing act, there still may be reasonable steps that can be taken by the ISP to discourage or reduce online copyright infringement,” the paper reads. “Extending authorization liability is essential to ensuring the existence of an effective legal framework that encourages industry cooperation and functions as originally intended, and is consistent with Australia’s international obligations.”

PROPOSAL 1 – EXTENDING LIABILITY

“The Government is looking to industry to reach agreement on appropriate industry schemes or commercial arrangements on what would constitute ‘reasonable steps’ to be taken by ISPs,” the paper notes.

Website blocking

Given several signals on the topic earlier this year, it comes as no surprise that website blocking is under serious consideration. The paper outlines blocking mechanisms in Europe, particularly the UK and Ireland, which allow for court injunctions to be issued against ISPs.

PROPOSAL 2 – WEBSITE BLOCKING

The Irish model, which has already blocked sites including The Pirate Bay and Kickass Torrents, is of special interest to the Australian Government, since proving that an ISP had knowledge of infringing conduct is not required to obtain an injunction. “A similar provision in Australian law could enable rights holders to take action to block access to a website offering infringing material, without the need to establish that a particular ISP authorized an infringement,” the paper notes, adding that such provisions would only apply to websites outside Aussie jurisdiction.

It’s likely that most copyright holders will be largely in favor of the Government’s proposals on the points detailed above, but whether ISPs will share their enthusiasm remains to be seen.

Stakeholders are expected to return their submissions by Monday 25th August.

By Andy – TorrentFreak – July 25, 2014

Box-Office Slump: Hollywood Facing Worst Summer in Eight Years

Less than six weeks before Labor Day, hopes for recovery at the North American summer box office have evaporated. The season is expected to finish down 15 to 20 percent compared with 2013, the worst year-over-year decline in three decades, and revenue will struggle to crack $4 billion, which hasn’t happened in eight years. As a result, analysts predict that the full year is facing a deficit of 4 to 5 percent.

Comparisons in North America are tough, considering revenue hit a record $4.75 billion in summer 2013. It didn’t help that Fast & Furious 7 was pushed from July to April 2015 following the death ofPaul Walker or that Captain America: The Winter Soldier opened in early April. But even bullish observers are grim. “Moviegoing begets moviegoing, and we have lost our momentum,” says Rentrak’s Paul Dergarabedian. “People aren’t seeing trailers and marketing materials. They still want to go to the movies — they just want to go to really good movies.”

Although there have been no Lone Ranger-size debacles, for the first time since 2001 no summer pic will cross $300 million domestically (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Maleficent and Transformers: Age of Extinction hover near $230 million).

May kicked off with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 earning $200 million less domestically than 2013’s Iron Man 3; by July 20, the divide had swelled to nearly $690 million as revenue topped out at $2.71 billion, down 20 percent compared with the same period last year.

International returns remain strong, making up for some of the damage, but in certain cases they aren’t enough. Spider-Man 2 topped out at $706.2 million globally, notably behind the $757.9 million earned by The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012. “I would have liked Amazing Spider-Man 2 to make a lot more money for us than it did, but it made a lot of money for us anyway,” Sony co-chairman Amy Pascal said in a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter.

X-Men is the only tentpole that has earned more than its predecessor domestically (X-Men: First Class grossed $146.4 million in 2011), contributing to Fox’s best summer in years (it is No. 1 in market share). But Paramount’s Age of Extinction has grossed far less than previous Transformersmovies domestically, though it will be the first 2014 film to hit $1 billion worldwide thanks to $300 million in China.

“Young men haven’t been as enthusiastic as usual,” says analyst Phil Contrino.

“Maybe [studios] shouldn’t just go after this demo when building their summer tentpoles.” Female-fueled properties, including Maleficent and The Fault in Our Stars, have produced some of the summer’s biggest success stories.

Also contributing to the malaise is a lack of family product (including no Pixar movie), the allure of TV and myriad ways consumers can view entertainment in their homes. (Laments one studio executive, “I wish I worked at Netflix.”)

Filmmaker Jon Favreau agrees that the popularity of television and new technologies are altering viewing habits. “I think times are changing. We have to acknowledge that and not try to chase what used to be,” says Favreau, who is currently prepping Jungle Book for Disney. At the same time, he said there will continue to be a worldwide appetite for big spectacle movies based on known brands.

But the Iron Man director is in theaters this summer not with a studio tentpole but with indie hit Chef, which has grossed north of $26 million to date, a coup for Favreau and independent distributor Open Road Films. With Chef, Favreau didn’t have to worry about making a film that needed to have the widest possible appeal. “It didn’t need to capture every person in every country,” he says.

Many medium-size studio movies have underperformed this summer, including Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West and Sony’s Cameron Diaz comedy Sex Tape, which opened July 18 to a meager $14.6 million.

For the summer to hit $4 billion and finish down only 15 percent, revenue needs to match last year’s through August. That puts pressure on Dwayne Johnson’s Hercules (July 25), Scarlett Johansson’sLucy (July 25), Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy (Aug. 1) and Paramount’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Aug. 8). But it’s a tall order, considering last summer ended with a bang. “I don’t know if we have a major sleeper left this year, other than Guardians,” says Dergarabedian.

Still, many believe summer 2015 will restore order with a lineup that includes Avengers: Age of Ultron,Minions and Jurassic World. “I think it’s cyclical,” says X-Men producer Simon Kinberg. “Next summer will be the biggest box-office summer in history, and nobody will be worrying about the business.”

Pamela McClintock – The Hollywood Reporter – 23/7/2014

Screen Australia to axe 12 staff and support for industry training programs after budget cuts

Screen Australia has announced how it will save more than $5m this year with measures including lowering its maximum investment in films to $2m, cutting 12 full time staff members and shedding $500,000 from marketing support. The publicly-funded body which provides grants to Australian film and drama producers was handed a $25m cut to its budget by the Federal Government over four years in May’s budget, and has undertaken a review of its processes to find where it could make the savings.

Training funds are also set to be cut with $400,000 stripped from the Talent Escalator program, whilst there will be a “transition away” from direct funding for screen resource organisations, with a move to commission them to do professional development activities handled in house.

Staff cuts will see the body reduced to effectively half of its 2008 size, with 100 full time employees as opposed to 190. CEO Graeme Mason said the review had led to a “renewed focus on the core business of the agency”.

In a posting on the Screen Australia website today Mason wrote: “We are streamlining our operations and making processes simpler and easier for industry, and to the greatest extent possible we have tried to maintain funding for on-screen production. We have also had to make difficult decisions, including a further 10 per cent reduction in staff, cuts to professional development and marketing initiatives, transitioning away from funding industry training organisations, and a relatively small reduction in production investment and project development.

“There are challenges before us, but I also see great potential. We will back our creative talent to capitalise on opportunities and take more Australian stories out to the world. We will grow the pie for Australian production by facilitating international collaborations, using advantages such as our talent and our world class production reputation.

“We will reduce process as much as possible and step out of the way of industry, providing more funding as grants, with no copyright interest, so that producers keep more revenue from their productions. We will encourage new models of digital production and distribution that ensure our industry continues to evolve with its audiences.”

AS well as the cuts the review has changed some processes of the organisation, including making all funding up to $500,000 a grant and relinquishing copyright on projects with that level of funding, with a new online application system to be introduced.

The marketing and state of industry departments will be abolished and replaced with a business and audience department to place more emphasis on business development, whilst funding to send talent and producers to international festivals to support their films, which drew criticism last year, have also been revised.

From the Screen Australia announcement:

Key changes 2014/15

In the context of reduced funding, Screen Australia has reviewed its programs to sharpen the focus on where we add the most value. We have also reviewed how these programs are delivered to find greater efficiencies, reduce overheads and simplify processes. Resulting changes are outlined below.

Processes

New terms, effective for applications received from 24 July 2014, will benefit producers:

• All funding up to $500,000 (except P&A loans) will be a grant. This will provide more equity for the producer as well as simplify the contracting process (previously the grant threshold was $200,000, and limited to documentary and some other programs).

• Screen Australia will also relinquish copyright in favour of the producer for all projects up to $500,000, retaining a 1 per cent share only in projects for which we provide recoupable investment.

• These policies will be reflected in revised Terms of Trade, and in program guidelines going forward.

Funding management processes will continue to be streamlined:

• Turnaround times shortened wherever possible

• Feature film Letters of Interest now approved by the CEO

• Applications to be submitted in two stages where possible, requiring fewer initial application materials to limit the burden on applicants

• An online application system to be introduced to make it easier for applicants as well as improve the efficiency of application processing.

Programs

Sharpened program focus is reflected across the agency:

• Greater emphasis on business development through the establishment of a Business and Audience department (replacing the previous Marketing department and the State and Industry programs)

• Enterprise funding to target industry attachments, high-level screenwriting development and industry capacities through new business models and ambitious business plans

• Production funding to sharpen its focus on stories that matter: innovative risk-taking projects that identify and build talent; culturally significant, intrinsically Australian stories that resonate with local audiences; and high-end ambitious projects that reflect Australia to the world

• International festival and market support programs revised to consolidate travel and materials funding, allowing producers to better leverage success at international events as part of release strategies

• Guidelines for the International Co-production program to be revised to better facilitate international partnerships.

Savings

Overall, funds will be retained on screen as much as possible, with the following adjustments:

• a further 10 per cent reduction in staff to 100 FTE personnel (112 at 30 June 2014, down from 190 in 2008), saving approximately $1 million • a $2–3 million reduction across production investment and project development programs, with the cap on Screen Australia investment in an individual feature project lowered from $2.5 million to $2 million in order to spread funds further

• a decrease in funding for traditional prints and advertising (P&A), saving approximately $500,000

• savings of around $400,000 in Talent Escalator professional development programs, avoiding duplication with the new Enterprise: People program, and from consolidation of short film programs

• transition away from direct funding of screen resource organisations, while exploring the potential to commission them to deliver professional development activities currently managed inhouse, creating savings of approximately $1–1.6 million

• small savings across other programs.

Aaddendum: The executive director of Screen Producers Australia, Matthew Deaner, said Screen Australia had done everything possible to minimise the budget’s impact on production levels, reports the SMH. ‘‘They’ve spread those changes across both their programs and internal operations, which was critical,” he said. “And they’ve done their best to minimise the impact on production output.’’

Alex Hayes – mumbrella blog – July 24th, 2014