Delusions Of Grandeur

I don’t watch Ginsu infomercials at 2AM and I’m pretty interesting, therefor I conclude that your site is a good thing. Write on.

Good post, Craig. In regard to egalitarianism, I think it divides into three branches:

1) Equality of information (Most people think that’s only fair; this is America after all);

2) Equality of opportunity (This exists only theoretically); and

3) Equality of result.

A lot of people think that 1) and 2) will automatically result in 3). That drives me crazy. The media aids and abets it with the implicit promise that if you dear reader only figure out how things work, per media (which often is clueless); success is almost assured.

God, I hope I’m not part of the unwashed masses.

You got me out of my cave.

Finally, someone I can agree with. Corporations are driving this new gold rush. Why? Because the new advertising industry is based on page views and clickthroughs. The more people blog, the more credibility online advertising gains.

How much of the content that people really watch on YouTube is people reposting stuff from the television anyway?

THe vast majority of the junk that gets forwarded to me from FOAFs are TV bumpers or commercials from my youth, something from Saturday Night Live or professionally produced television commercials either from the U.S. or other countries.

I mean, I liked being able to prove to my wife that there was once a cartoon short that played on Saturday mornings trying to convince kids to not drown their food, but I’m not sure it’s life on the Internet is an example of the fall of the MSM at the hands of DIY content creators.

Craig -

Definitely see your take on this, but I’d like to offer an alternative. You said that people would never pay to watch the videos on YouTube, and you’re right, they wouldn’t - which is one of the reasons why they DO watch it, in my view. It’s free, it’s simple, it’s home video, for Heaven’s sake. But I think a lot of people - while not outright fed up - are overly familiar with high-end production values and flashy marketing. The amazing things Hollywood pulls off has become commonplace. “A completely computer-generated world wrapped around three live actors? Of course they can do it, it’s Hollywood!”

In some circumstances, the “ordinary extraordinary” people are more interesting to watch, just because we know they have nothing but themselves to do these things with, responsible to no one but themselves. You don’t see a lot of videos on YouTube worrying about test audiences and MPAA ratings.

And sometimes they are stupid people with stupid videos. But come on, we’re not that far off from the bread and circuses of old. Spectacle, in whatever form we find it, still holds some sway.

In defense of YouTube, I must point out Ask a Ninja. Short form comedy like this has no other market outside of YouTube, and I think, in its own way, AAN is just as funny as, say, Airplane! or Thank You for Smoking.

CRAIG -

SCREW YOUR POST.

WHAT THE PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO KNOW IS…

WHEN WILL JOHN TURMAN’S “ASK A PRO” THREAD START ALREADY???

WE’RE GETTING SUPER-DUPER IMPATIENT.

With Man-Love and Unpure Hugs,

THE TIM TALBOTT CONTINGENT

Matt -

Your defense is weak because you compared Ask a Ninja with Airplane.

Even putting those two in the same sentence makes me feel all dirty and stuff.

I can only reason that you are the ninja in the video and must, understandably, support your work.

Otherwise, there is no excuse.

That is all.

Craig, I agree with you in theory. In practice, though, it does seem like television (more so than movies) is starting to fall of the radar of under-18s in favor of YouTube, etc. When they’re home and bored, they turn on YouTube instead of the TV. Even big popular shows a la Lost, 24,etc. aren’t catching on with the youngest viewers. Hard to tell if this is the first sign of a sea change or not, but it might be.

I thought my g/f was kidding when she said the new Time magazine Man of the Year was a mirror cover thing…

Like Big Lebowski? Yeah, like The Big Lebowski.

Sure…

Even the best and most clever and assiduous of home-media folks create things I�m pretty sure I wouldn�t buy. I enjoy the occasional episode of Red vs. Blue or a StrongBad email, but would I pay for it? No.

And yet people do pay for StrongBad, at least in the same way people pay for TV. Although Homestarrunner.com (where StrongBad appears) doesn’t charge for content, it does charge for merchandise—and just as TV content exists only to drive eyeballs to advertisers, so StrongBad exists only to drive torsos to StrongBad t-shirts. (From a strictly economic point of view, that is.) The guys who do Homestarrunner.com make a full-time living from the site, and have for several years.

Kind of weakens your point, doesn’t it?

Fortunately, I’m here to save you. Because your larger point is that some people are more talented than others, and Homestarrunner is actually a great example of that. There are hundreds of thousands of home-made flash animations on the Web, and Homestar Runner is one of the few that’s good enough to make its creators a living.

So, the future of entertainment isn’t the “Everybody will be famous!” kind of thing implied by Time’s Man of the Year choice. But neither will it be the pre-Internet model where a small number of media conglomerates control everything. Instead, it looks to be heading towards a mixture. Millions of people will put up junk on the Internet and fade away. Some people will put up witty, original stuff (like the StrongBad e-mails, or Penny Arcade, or PvP) and be able to make a living from it entirely outside the traditional distribution systems. (And some of those people will then get courted by Hollywood, and move inside the system. But not all of them.)

I stopped reading TIME magazine when they started writing it for readers at the eighth grade level, and started putting in grandiose, generalized nonsense - much like the new technology section at Yahoo, where touting stuff you can buy is what passes for “news”. The media outlets are stooping to conquer, more and more, and with what passes for education in this country, who can blame them for tickling our feet to get our attention? And of course they do it to sell magazines/advertising. Why else would they bother?

Technology makes all this brain farting on YouTube and elsewhere possible. It doesn’t change basic human nature which doesn’t seem to have altered its fundamentally self-destructive course for the last five thousand years. I suspect at some point the shine will be off the apple - after we’ve gorged ourselves on cute kitty videos - and something else will take its place. Passing the time of day with these pretty and petty distractions is what many people, especially in the warm, comfy USA call their “life”.

Hopefully at some point we’ll become less preoccupied with our own irresistable cuteness and try to fix the world we live in, but I doubt it. Until such a distant time, anything anyone wants to dangle in front of his fellow bipeds will fly or die based on the whims of the mob, not media conglomerates or DIY media mavericks. Feel the momentum, feel the inertia. It’s bigger than any corporate or political agenda. In that respect we ARE TIME’s Man of the Year. But it’s nothing to brag about.

Jacob, it’s really freakin’ irritating to have someone tell you what the point of what you’re saying is. I think Craig understands what he said.

Great post, Craig! I agree with you 100%.

strange how in a time when our government shows us that we have zilch power at all, and our voice in form of opinion polls means crap (last night’s presidential address, anybody?) a renowned mass publication tells us “we’re de man!”. on second thought, not strange at all… this is mass manipulation on a grand scale. the home of the brave is transforming into a brave new world, right before our eyes. that’s what I call entertaining.

Time may have gone overboard with their Man of The Year and YouTube may be filled with junk, but just because millions pay to see Michael Bay, and crappy remakes, and crappy sequels, and crappy crap… that doesn’t mean they’re good.

Sometimes you get less than what you pay for.

Jacob, it�s really freakin� irritating to have someone tell you what the point of what you�re saying is. I think Craig understands what he said.

David, your larger point is that I am a genius with the physique of a Greek god, whose very presence causes women to swoon with desire and men to swoon with envy. And in this, you are correct. Thank you for mentioning it.

Glad you could clear that up for me

I’m not defending Time, but your post struck me a little as whistling past the graveyard. Yeah, YouTube’s filled with untalented people, but Hollywood’s got its fair share too - it’s just they’ve got 10 million dollars in marketing to cover their ass. I’d love to see what the AskANinja guys could do with the budget of Scary Movie III. Might never happen, but we’re getting closer.

Scott:

Actually, that’s a good point. The AAN guys (who are NOT as funny as Airplane!…jesus CHRIST!) are repped by UTA and Gold/Miller. Obviously, somone else (Global Media) figured out that they were too funny to just be giving it away for free, and now those guys are developing an animated show for….Global Media…

In that sense, you can argue that the internet is like the Rose Bowl on American Idol audition day. Somewhere in the Rose Bowl may the next American Idol, but anyone who says to all of the people in the Rose Bowl that they are, collectively, the American Idol is, well, missing the point in a galactically massive way.

David:

Jacob is an old friend of mine. He is allowed to tell me what my point is, because he typically understands my points better than I do.

An ironic post this is.

1. You knock on the idiots with their seizure-inducing Myspace pages and their “hey ma, wut up-ness”, but you don’t seem to realize that THESE ARE THE SAME IDIOTS WHO PAID TO SEE SCARY MOVIE 3! AND 4! The same idiots who can laugh at somebody getting hit in the head or kicked in the groin fifty-plus times in an eighty minute span.

2. Plenty of us could live without another shitty, slapstick send-up.

3. Love your blog. Please update more often.

I’m not a big fan of youtube videos at all but Abbegirl does a very good job, it’s very amateur but she’s very funny and it makes me believe that it’s not so useless.

Actually, we just tolerate that, because it’s free. And it’s like when you see talk shows with “normal” people , I mean not stars. (Theorically) you can identify yourself to these people, giving the impression that you are important, because you might be watched by millions of people. And that reflects this Time cover.

And now, let’s play a game : how many french words did Craig use for this article ? (I couldn’t imagine you say “par excellence”. So weird.)

Jeff/Yoda:

Plenty < the box office totals for those movies.

The rest of what you had to say makes my head hurt. And not in a good ‘i’m-a learnin supmin” way.

I agree, the key is free.

My site got 2.8 million visitors last year and I updated once — with no advertising to lure them in.

But if I was to charge anything, the traffic would be zero.

Anonymous:

I guess you’re one of those who paid to see Scary Movie 4.

Tell me, do you ever get bored driving around the mall on Friday nights?

The Pilot’s point vis-a-vis pay-per-click marketing is dead-on. For instance Google is now the largest marketing media outlet evar. As in they get more ad bucks than ABC, NBC, CBS or Time for that matter. So feeding the general public’s already rampant narcissism benefits most those who are getting paid for all those adsense clicks.

However I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the interweb’s potential. It makes you come off like an old-world-media curmudgeon. Even Rupert Murdoch’s hipper than that.

True, most of what gets sent to my inbox in the way of YouTube links is dreck. The best of it’s usually of the unintentionally funny variety; like people getting hit in the nads, or that break-dancing Indian midget or, uh, that movie about the motherfuckin’ snakes on the plane. And you can’t fake that, the oblivious irony. Which is why SOAP’s actual box-office failed to live up to the buzz. People were content to laugh AT the movie. Not the movie itself even, the very IDEA of the movie. Many media pundits rah-rahing the “power of the internet” thus got egg on their faces.

I mean if leveling the media playing field was the great equalizer that the PPC-barons would like us to think, surely we would have found Coppola’s fat girl with the camcorder by now, right?

Maybe. Or maybe it’s just a matter of time. Because for every 100,000,000,000 or so crappy video there is that gem. The diamond-in-the-rough slab of brilliance that can only come from a couple of creative kids with a camcorder and some big ideas. You can’t fake that either.

You also can’t forget that these are different media. Web video is a little box a couple of inches around. Most of the videos are under 6 minutes long. You can’t put the same dollar value on that as you would a 2 hour feature film viewed on a 50 foot screen.

But I’ll still laugh harder at a 6 minute episode of “Yacht Rock” than I would watching a Scary Movie sequel. I don’t think I’m alone in this either. Sure it’s raw, sure it’s amateur, but it’s also funny as hell. You can dismiss the creators now, but wait until they take your next job.

Jeff:

Hey, that was me as ‘anonymous’. Just realized I didn’t put my handle in. Sorry.

Yes, I did pay to see Scary Movie 4. I was there on opening night.

AND that was on a FRIDAY. (A welcome reprieve from my usual routine…which is, well, pretty much what you said).

But what’s your point again?

The Times piece is obviously inane, but I think you’re missing a really important trend that new media is going to be able to capitalize on that old media can’t, namely the increasing fragmentation of the audience. Back in the early days of television, you had a handful of channels and nearly everyone, from the lowly factory worker, to the CEO watched one of those channels. There were only a few dominant cultures at work. Today, you have countless subcultures, most with people who pay to prove how ‘in’ they are. The model that people like strongbad and penny-arcade use is going to become more common and more important. I think this trend is going to continue and within a generation, there will no longer be a mass audience as we understand it today.

It’s interesting to see how many predictions of gloom and doom I’ve read about the media industry and how the Internet will never ever ever make money and there is nothing really worth looking at on there anyway. If you would believe these predictions, then both new and old media will become obsolete in the next few years. I guess people just stare at blank walls in the future.

By the way, you’re missing the point of Myspace. They don’t have the same goals you do when they write a blog and they don’t give a damn what you (and other elitists) think. They’re not idiots, simply because they don’t have your views and goals. It’s a social networking site, not a stone tablet to be preached from a mountaintop.

You knock on the idiots with their seizure-inducing Myspace pages and their “hey ma, wut up-ness”, but you don’t seem to realize that THESE ARE THE SAME IDIOTS WHO PAID TO SEE SCARY MOVIE 3! AND 4! The same idiots who can laugh at somebody getting hit in the head or kicked in the groin fifty-plus times in an eighty minute span.

Hey, I think some people ought to be content with being members of an audience.

As for laughing at someone getting hit in the head or kicked in the groin, I’m always up for that myself.

You do realize that we actually find our own movies funny, right? :)

“Hey, I think some people ought to be content with being members of an audience.”

Absolutely. But why is it that you reserve that judgement for people whose work appeares on youtube and not at the local multiplex?

How does the fact that a few studio execs deem a writer or director worthy of paying a ton of money outweigh the fact that a few thousand people deem a different writer or director worthy of six or seven minutes of their time?

Yeah, the internet’s a vast wasteland of immense mediocrity. No question. But so’s Hollywood, bubba. We’re not exactly re-living the seventies in terms of the quality of output lately, ya know?

Yeah, the Time article’s moronic, and it’s good to be a goddam elitist when it comes to the arts…. but get real. If you replaced the ten worst filmmakers in Hollywood with the ten best filmmakers on the internet, the universe would be a much sweeter place.

You do realize that we actually find our own movies funny, right?

My movies are hilarious…I just wish they were comedies.

What happened??

I was on genuineginsu.com, minding my own business…

Clicked on “Company” - and found myself here…

Where are the damned knives?!

I haven’t read the Time article and I don’t know how much weight they gave youtube.

Is this actually Time?

I’m going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana?… Who has that time and that energy and that passion?

Are they serious? Craig, I thought you were being satirical.

Who could argue that home-grown content on YouTube can compete with Hollywood. I only ever seem to use it for archival footage of movies and TV shows from the mass media, less often for home vids of cool stuff (model planes with jet engines… whoa!), and the occasional Japanese TV ad with Darth Vader—I didn’t realise all those inane comedy sketches were it’s raison d’etre. I used YouTube yesterday—to find the Shield Season 6 promo (I’m in UK). That’s what it’s great for.

If you eschew YouTube you are still entertained, just not as conveniently.

By the same token, if you eschew the current affairs blogs, you are pitifully misinformed.

And anyone who argues otherwise is probably still under the impression that Israel blew up two red cross ambulances in Lebanon last summer.

Who here relied upon Fox or CNN for news during the Israeli-Lebanon war? Shepherd Smith live on the front line became the equivalent of a YouTube curio, and instead of turning to the remote we turned to the blogs, the DebkaFiles, Pajamas Media and the wires (alongside LittleGreenFootballs so we had an idea which wire images had been photoshopped).

The networks and newspapers were reduced to the level of YouTube, something we could easily live without: bad and boring and biased reporting, but with videophone (WTF! this videophone footage rocks! katyusha. lol. omg brilliant dude.).

Some bloggers are considerably better writers than their paid counterparts in the mass media. A few are so insightful and well connected, they are favourited by government and Pentagon policy makers.

But I don’t see Hollywood turning to YouTube for ideas anytime soon.

Is this actually Time?

I’m going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana?… Who has that time and that energy and that passion?

Are they serious? Craig, I thought you were being satirical.

Who could argue that home-grown content on YouTube can compete with Hollywood. I only ever seem to use it for archival footage of movies and TV shows from the mass media, less often for home vids of cool stuff (model planes with jet engines… whoa!), and the occasional Japanese TV ad with Darth Vader—I didn’t realise all those inane comedy sketches were it’s raison d’etre. I used YouTube yesterday—to find the Shield Season 6 promo (I’m in UK). That’s what it’s great for.

If you eschew YouTube you are still entertained, just not as conveniently.

By the same token, if you eschew the current affairs blogs, you are pitifully misinformed.

And anyone who argues otherwise is probably still under the impression that Israel blew up two red cross ambulances in Lebanon last summer.

Who here relied upon Fox or CNN for news during the Israeli-Lebanon war? Shepherd Smith live on the front line became the equivalent of a YouTube curio, and instead of turning to the remote we turned to the blogs, the DebkaFiles, Pajamas Media and the wires (alongside LittleGreenFootballs so we had an idea which wire images had been photoshopped).

The networks and newspapers were reduced to the level of YouTube, something we could easily live without: bad and boring and biased reporting, but with videophone (WTF! this videophone footage rocks! katyusha. lol. omg brilliant dude.).

Some bloggers are considerably better writers than their paid counterparts in the mass media. A few are so insightful and well connected, they are favourited by government and Pentagon policy makers.

But I don’t see Hollywood turning to YouTube for ideas anytime soon.

sorry for the double post.

I just looked up a Katyusha on YouTube and the first comment in the first video is actually “wtf. lol”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNXQql6_vy0

No kidding. At least these idiots are corralled in YouTube and off the blogs. Where would they go if it was incinerated?!

Brough:

That really was Time. Lifted directly from the article.

C.

Nice post, Craig. Now, how about a link to that Ginsu site - I must know more. Nevermind, a new show about vacuum cleaners just came on. How do I find the time…

Fair play to the YouTube founders for getting $1.6 billion in stock. They initially took a huge risk and it paid off. A few months ago AskaNinja claimed a major studio had offered him only $500 (all-in!) for a commissioned video. That is not quite as easy to understand.

Broughcut,

“Some bloggers are considerably better writers than their paid counterparts in the mass media.”

And some youtube filmmakers are blowing Hollywood craftsmen out of the water.

“But I don’t see Hollywood turning to YouTube for ideas anytime soon.”

They already have. The lonelygirl folks are a recent example, and there are plenty of other people who’ve parlayed a short on the internet into a deal at a studio.

Listen, I’m all for standards and gatekeepers and anything else that’ll keep the no-talent hacks with zero imagination from storming the gates of the arts, but as anyone who sat through The Da Vinci Code, or Turistas, or Click or any number of other unspeakable travesties unleashed on the world by the studios knows, it’s not like Hollywood’s some bastion of quality.

Hollywood looks for talent wherever they can find it. Always has, always will. And as frustrating as it might be plowing through endless awful homemade videos online, is it any worse than going to film school festivals?

“And some youtube filmmakers are blowing Hollywood craftsmen out of the water.”

Great, I’m in the mood for a short characteristic of Michael Mann’s edge and verisimilitude… any suggestions?

And how many years has ifilm been around for? Six? Strange world, youtube is 90% copyright violation and sold for $1.6 billion, ifilm (if I remember correctly) had 100% original content for years but couldn’t afford to continue hosting the message board that actually brought industry traffic within the proximity of ifilm filmmakers.

The blogs have overtaken the global main-stream media for news and analysis. In this respect, Time is dead-on. But why the focus on YouTube and MySpace?? Bewildering. It would have made more sense for Time to put a little green American football on their cover: http://tinyurl.com/oz889

If that ambulance story I mentioned earlier had been frisked a little quicker the so-called ‘blogosphere’ may well have turned the outcome of a war (instead, the MSM decided the outcome of the war by perpetuating an entirely incorrect and exceptionally damaging story).

Bloggers are indeed ‘seizing the reins of the global media’, but that does not include Hollywood. Besides, the internet has less relevance when it comes to movies. What did all the hype for Snakes on a Plane amount to — a $15 opening.

If I want in depth up-to-date coverage on a news story, BBC or Times Online or Fox is no longer enough. If I want to watch a movie, or a TV show, YouTube or ifilm or any other user-generated content does not even factor.

There has definitely been a seismic shift, one which YouTube’s content-creators have little to do with.

re lonelygirl - I think the site still deserves a lot of credit for making it easier for bloggers to add videos to their articles, but a vaguely cute vaguely psychotic possibly interesting chick from New York Film Academy isn’t going to change the course of a war or even an industry by uploading to YouTube. Great for her but how is it in anyway important?

I think Atlas should be person of the year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk07p1sRBoM

And some youtube filmmakers are blowing Hollywood craftsmen out of the water.

Hey Josh - could you post a link? I’d love to see an example.

Broughcut,

““And some youtube filmmakers are blowing Hollywood craftsmen out of the water.”

Great, I’m in the mood for a short characteristic of Michael Mann’s edge and verisimilitude… any suggestions?”

A phony argument, using bad rhetorical manipulation. Dishonest. Boring. Silly.

I didn’t say youtube filmmakers were creating better work than Hollywood’s best. I made the point - clearly and explicitly - that some of the stuff you find on the internet was better than some of the stuff you find in theaters. The best youtube short is way better than the worst Hollywood movie. Hardly a revolutionary statement, I’d think, even for this place. In case awards season has dazzled you so much you’ve forgotten the year that came before, let me remind you:

Wicker Man Date Movie Turistas Da Vinci Code London The Grudge 2 Running With Scissors You, Me and Dupree American Dreamz Pulse Annapolis Failure To Launch Employee Of The Month

Just to name a few.

Any chance I can get you to acknowledge that Hollywood’s capable of turning out some pretty unwatchable crap, or do you want to keep acting like I said lonelygirl was better than The Godfather?

“The best youtube short is way better than the worst Hollywood movie”

Yeah I got that, but I’d still like to see an example. Everyone knows examples of crap hollywood movies, and nobody needed you to list those. I’m coming up a little shorter on this “best youtube short” thing. Maybe you can help me out here.

I mean, they have clips from The Godfather on Youtube… those were pretty good. I guess…

R.

Ruari,

“Yeah I got that, but I’d still like to see an example”

Based on your presence here, I’m reasonably certain you have internet access. I humbly suggest you head on over to youtube.com and look around.

You have it at your fingertips. I remember the first time I came across this phenomenon, many years ago. Guy comes into a message board for screenwriters, asks, “I’m trying to find out who wrote the movie version of The Graduate. I figured you guys would know. I’ll check back for the answer. Thanks in advance.” Seriously, man. It’s the INTERNET. It’s at your fingertips. There are questions you do not need to ask anymore. Ever.

I do believe that some YouTube sketches that people find funny have been mentioned in this thread already. I’m not familiar with them, but I have no problem taking Josh’s word for it that at least a few of ‘em are funnier than Date [you call this a] Movie[?] was.

Josh, you had no problem listing what you think are good movies, like The Godfather, or bad ones like:

“Wicker Man Date Movie Turistas Da Vinci Code London The Grudge 2 Running With Scissors You, Me and Dupree American Dreamz Pulse Annapolis Failure To Launch Employee Of The Month”

That was a big list that nobody asked for. But when I ask you to tell me what youtube movies you say are blowing hollywood craftsmen out the water, I’m being lazy? You’ve said some of these things are good, but you haven’t said which ones. Rather than… you know, guess which films on youtube you might happen to think are good, I’m asking you. I know what I think is good, I don’t need you to tell me that. Just asking your opinion is all…

R.

DON’T answer that, Josh. It’s a trick question. No matter what clip you list, folks will use your viral preferences against you, and we’ll never hear the end of it…

“…for a guy who thinks The Original Cuppycake Video is better than You, Me And Dupree you have a pretty small penis!”

Something along those lines.

Johhny, with all due respect, You have no idea why I’m asking this question, and it’s absolutely not what you are suggesting. Seriously.

And I don’t think he needs you to protect him from the big bag world.

R.

A phony argument, using bad rhetorical manipulation. Dishonest. Boring. Silly.

Um, have you looked in the Time Cover recently? ;)

You said some youtube filmmakers are blowing Hollywood craftsmen out of the water. Not some some youtube filmmakers are shooting fish in a barrel with blowing darts. I haven’t seen any of the films you list. Well I caught some of Da Vinci Code on a plane, it was dreadful, but do you know of any YouTube shorts in this genre that are better?

I didn’t ask for better work than Hollywood’s best. Just a no-budget short that’s reminiscent of Michael Mann… how about any examples or original drama that aren’t skits or mocumentries? I am not debating they exist, ifilm had some good ones… I’m just agreeing that YouTube is nothing new and pretty much insignificant.

And at what stage in the game was the ‘lonleygirl’ project broadcasting to the world from the CAA Deathstar?

Hmmm, maybe Josh is right.

http://www.the-editing-room.com/?script=historyofviolence

Honestly posted for a laugh. Only good movies get parodied…

C.

R.

I’m not protecting josh, I’m protecting us, the readership of this site, from the inevitable.

Rod’s site is a writer’s YouTube.

It is too bad UTA and CAA won’t pay any attention.

Craig, you say:

“It just so happens that my blog is (and I say with honesty) good. It?s actually good. I?m interesting. I?m interesting, I write about interesting things, and I know this, because last month 40,000 different people stopped by at one point or another to read this site or participate in the forum …”

I can’t speak for the other 39,999 who visited your blog last month but I confess I lurk here because I enjoy seeing pro writers snipe at each other. This is what I find interesting.

However, on the topic at hand, it’s entirely possible that a percentage of these youtube types are talented enough to someday compete with industry filmmakers by making feature films distributed online. It could happen. And it could negatively impact the film industry. In fact, it may already be negatively impacting the industry.

Instead of ridiculing these people for being not as special or interesting as “you” are, perhaps we should ponder the inherent questions the Time article poses:

Why are so many people choosing to miss an episode - or an entire season - of Lost and instead choosing to make films about their pet iguana?

Why are so many people not showing up for the opening weekend of Snakes On A Plane and instead spending 8-10 hours per weekend logged onto My Space?

Could it be they’re bored with the entertainment offered by the TV and Film industries?

Instead of proclaiming these youtubers are undeserving of gazing into the mirrored Time covered, ask yourself why you’re losing their attention.

SusanC:

I’ll refute your final question. Box office was up in 2006.

I don’t think anyone is choosing to miss an episode of anything. Between VCRs, DVRs, downloads and DVDs, if you want to watch an episode of something, you watch it.

The reason people want to make films about their pet iguana is obviously and as old as film (if not as old as iguanas). People think they’re interesting. They think their lives are interesting. They think their stories are interesting.

Every now and again, they’re right.

Usually, they’re not.

Ok a few comments: 1.)The History of Violence screenplay parody is seriously the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long ass time. And I re-watched Dick in a Box last night.

2.)Back to Jacob’s point: It reminds me a lot of the crap you heard with the video store-generation. The group of kids who could cheaply edit home-movies on their VCR and were going to revolutionize film. Like you sort of predicted: A few were courted, made some decent films, and things are pretty much the same as they were. Blair Witch or El Mariachi would be another example of the “movies will never be the same” and every now and then you get a new one, but Hollywood’s still making their films and people are still going to see them.

3.)I come here because the blog is good and Craig is interesting. However, all the crap about people not caring about movies and television is absurd. It’s been one of the highest grossing years for films(despite the day and date nonsense starting to creep in and the shortening DVD/tv release window). Anyone who thinks that people are going to all of sudden stop going to the theater and instead watch their neighbors Youtube short clearly didn’t catch the opening day of X-Men 3 or the opening weekend of Pirates of the Caribbean or catch the legs of A Night at the Museum. People are still going to the movies and they’re going to keep going. We can get into arguments of how much quality influences grosses, but they’re still going to go. Because it’s true that while there’s a lot of shit at the theaters, a lot of it is actually good or interesting or funny. And 99% of it’s better then what you find on the internet. I mean there is the occassional Youtube short worth watching. But how often are these “film-makers” capable of sustaining my interest for 2-hours. How many of them are actually going to make something that I’m thinking about an hour later, or a day later, or a week later? I’m sure a few are really, really talented creative people. But like Craig’s point: most aren’t. I mean, I can sit in my room and play my guitar all day. I can even invite my friends and my neighbors over to listen. And they might be nice and tell me how great I am, but I can’t sell out Madison Square Garden. Not going to happen. Somebody can, but not me. Not most people. Youtube is really interesting and every now and then something remotely capable of keeping my interest for 5 minutes pops up. But if I have 2 hours I don’t turn to Youtube to satiate my entertainment desires. I drive to my local movie theater and watch something much better. So, in my opinion, Craig’s point stands.

Johnny,

“No matter what clip you list, folks will use your viral preferences against you, and we’ll never hear the end of it…”

In a nutshell, that’s precisely why I won’t answer the question.

But there’s this dude who does this face dance thing to a piece of classical music that’s…. Oops. Never mind.

Craig,

“Honestly posted for a laugh. Only good movies get parodied…”

Actually, it looks like EVERY movie gets parodied.

That I will never see a movie I made get parodied by Mort Drucker is a sadness I can almost not bear. Seriously.

PS: The musical version we came up with on the set is WAY fuckin’ funnier than that one, though.

Andrew,

“And 99% of it’s better then what you find on the internet. I mean there is the occassional Youtube short worth watching. But how often are these “film-makers” capable of sustaining my interest for 2-hours. How many of them are actually going to make something that I’m thinking about an hour later, or a day later, or a week later? I’m sure a few are really, really talented creative people. But like Craig’s point: most aren’t. “

The same point applies to Hollywood. It’s easy to make this comment now, when we’re in the middle of that short period where the studios actually drop some good movies into theaters, but the other nine months of the year get steadily more and and more dreary, boring and inane.

TV viewership has been on a fairly steady decline since the advent of the internet, for good or bad. The internet offers something more interesting to a lot of people, clearly, and some of that is the work of filmmakers who are too out there (creatively or geographically) to be working in Hollywood.

In a nutshell, that’s precisely why I won’t answer the question.

Fair enough. But it’s hardly self-evident to the known world that “youtube filmmakers” are blowing hollywood out of the water, otherwise I assume we’d be swimming in examples by now. Since I suppose you have a fair enough reason for not engaging this, I’ll let you off the hook and leave it at that.

But… anyone else have any examples? Hey you can just throw the names out there, you don’t have to defend them with your life or anything, in an Octagon, with a trident and net, to the death. It’s just a question.

I suppose first we have to define what the hell a “youtube filmmaker” is in the first place since I don’t think that’s self evident either, and if it’s just an unfortunate word choice I don’t want to get stuck on it. It’s worth mentioning that anyone that’s actually serious about making anything, and has any knowledge of “craft” would never allow themselves to be called a bloody “youtube filmmaker” in the first place. Anyone that made a short that was on the web and got noticed by Hollywood, or the public, or started a career - 405 the movie, Prey Alone, whatever, did not get noticed because of youtube. It might have filtered down to youtube eventually, but not BECAUSE of it. Just because something was on youtube, doesn’t mean it was any factor in its success. This probably will happen in the future, but as far as I can see, it hasn’t happened yet.

Has it?

Sanity check.

The URL is for today’s Most Viewed YouTube clips. Among them (edited for bots and google):

Along with “Br-tney Sp-ars Takes Sean Preston To Playground”, “P-ula A-dul unedited”, “SNL” and caagirls’ “Hiding In The Bathroom” is a video with the title “M—A ROSE SE- TAPE, U——AGE AND UNCUT!! (NOT JOKING)”

No, your flash isn’t stalling, it is a 41 second long photograph of nothing. And it’s one of YouTube’s most popular videos.

As one astute YouTuber observes:

haha there is one of theese videos in the most watched list every week, and you dumbasses fall for it every time!

This is the future?

SusanC, maybe because Lost is pants? They have spent half a season dismantling their own world hand haven’t even worked out how to address the season two cliffhanger yet. I used to love that show. Hopefully I will again. Still, TV has never been better (or more watched? are you sure about those numbers, Josh? According to Nielsen TV’s share is up, but I don’t know how trusted/accurate Nielsen is these days.)

TV viewership is a very tricky thing to determine. There is no doubt that the big broadcast networks have suffered declines.

On the other hand, there’s ample evidence now that the availability of network shows via iTunes is increasing television viewership of those shows.

And then there’s the wild world of cable.

I googled around for a reliable graph of total television viewership and couldn’t find one. Maybe someone else can.

I’m more interested in far-reaching trends. Many industries make the mistake of only projecting to the next quarter.

A slow erosion of TV and film viewership numbers which appear nominal in the present can become a huge problem for the entertainment industry in the future. Also, DVD sales have stagnated - this should cause major concern for the film industry.

The 15-year old kid making youtube shorts about his pet iguana today may be making feature-length online films five years from now working entirely outside the industry.

These kids are becoming conditioned to getting all their information and entertainment from the internet. They’re getting used to watching video clips on the screens of their cell phones.

Five years is a very short time - by the time they’re 20 they could possibly be a market totally lost to the traditional entertainment industries.

From a business standpoint, I wouldn’t ridicule them, I’d try to understand what motivates them.

Speaking of online trends, have you checked out secondlife.com? Over 2 million people purchasing virtual real estate, building virtual homes, buying virtualclothing for their virtual versions of themselves.

Instead of living vicariously through films, they’re living vicariously through online worlds they’re created themselves.

Instead of watching the fictional stories offered by the film industry, they’re creating their own fictional stories.

I find this intriguing.

“Five years is a very short time - by the time they’re 20 they could possibly be a market totally lost to the traditional entertainment industries.

From a business standpoint, I wouldn’t ridicule them, I’d try to understand what motivates them.”

Yup. As for secondlife, though, I wouldn’t place too much stock in that. It’s an animated chat room. The fascinating thing about it is that the lives you can live there are pretty humdrum. You have to get a job to make money so you can buy a place to live in this virtual city. Then all you do is walk around and talk to people.

All it speaks to, I’m afraid, is the way in which people’s imaginations have atrophied. If I’m gonna go disappear into some virtual world for hours at a time, the fantasy I live out won’t be that I have a job and a two bedroom apartment and hang out in bars talking to people, ya know?

Actually Josh, I’d argue that the other nine months of the year are getting better every year about releasing interesting films. Studios are beginning to learn that the value of the product will sell the film and not necessarily the date. You will always have a substantial number of “Oscar” films released in Sep.-Dec. just because of the “fresh on voters mind” syndrome. However, more and more studios are releasing better films year-long ever since Silence of the Lambs and Saving Private Ryan, etc. proved that quality films can make money and be Oscar contenders even when released earlier in the year. And I stand by my statement that for the most part professional film-makers are the best and those that are good enough will soon be admitted the club; but like Craig’s point: Most of them suck and are undeserving of acclaim.

Josh:

True, the overall quality of “creativity” on secondlife.com or youtube may be largely subpar, I’m more curious about why people are inspired to put in the time and effort to do it at all.

Especially when they have so many other options for entertaiment offered by TV and films (including Tivo and DVDs delivered to their mailboxes).

My question is - how much has the film market been further fractionalized by the resources for entertainment on the internet?

Considering the nature of the internet - it’s difficult to come up with a number.

BTW: I found a 1959 Time article discussing how Hollywood was dealing with the impact of TV on box office sales. Here’s an exerpt:

“The only reason for the cutback in movies at all,” says Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s boss, Sol C. Siegel, “is that we will not make pictures for the sake of making pictures any more.” TV has killed the routine movie for most people (who can watch all the routine movies they want to on TV), forced Hollywood to concentrate on blockbusters—the big-screen, big-star, big-color extravaganzas that often cost upwards of $3,000,000. The blockbusters have no trouble luring people away from TV ….”

Full article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,811090-1,00.html

Isn’t the power of youtube the interactivity? It’s not “here I made this, now sit back and watch’ and then that’s the end of it.

It’s the immediacy of response that people get that turns them on. It’s “You showed me yours now I’ll show you mine” type of thing.

Back and forth, back and forth…

The 10% that isn’t clips off of other media is a multi-media conversation between people.

It’s an active experience.

Like Gears of War, to which I shall now return.

I’m pretty sure Gears of Wars has done as well as it has strictly for the chainsaw bayonet idea. Certainly not for its mind-blowing wordsmithing, anyway.

Which reminds me. Craig, are you a gamer? Do you pay much attention to video game stories? Any opinions on the state of game writing? I’m in that industry, and frankly it’s some of the worst storytelling ive ever seen, and wondered if you had any take on how to make it better.

The nice thing about the internet as far as media goes is it does give creative folks an opportunity to try their hand out at writing/producing/directing and see how the market reacts without putting too much of their livelyhood at stake. Content that internet audiences do like really can catch a buzz and get the talented few some positive attention. Also as the internet, on-demand, cable and home video build a more coherent and converging infrastructure over the next few years we’ll see higher quality content from the studios coming down the pipe made specifically for download. But Craig, you’re right, there is a disproportionate amount of crappy and worthless video on the internet. There is also a lot of crappy and worthless shit on TV and the big screen. I don’t think Youtube is the answer but there will come a time when folks will pay a premium for content on the web. You are a 100 percent right it’s going to be when someone makes content that the audience is willing to pay for and right now there’s precious little on the internet worth paying for. But if activity around Hollywood is any predictor that is about t change very, very quickly.

Phoenix:

Oh, I beg to differ. GoW is successful because it captures a certain realistic duck-and-cover action with terrifically smooth shooting and environment graphics, and it’s also something that hasn’t been done well for a long time now…a 3rd person shooter.

The chainsaw thing is a gimmick. You can only use it effectively on Wretches, and they’re so easy to kill, it hardly matters.

But no…I never pay video games…….. :)

I wrote one article on the vid game industry.

http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2006/07/writing_oblivio.html

C.

Phoenix,

“I’m in that industry, and frankly it’s some of the worst storytelling ive ever seen, and wondered if you had any take on how to make it better.”

Why?

Isn’t that sort of like asking how to make the interactive aspects of movies better? If I want to immerse myself in narrative, I read a book or see a movie. If I want to blow things up and rassle aliens, I play a video game. Frankly, I’ve often wondered why they bother putting so much effort into the storytelling. I know a lot of people follow the stories, but I know a hell of a lot of us click past that crap to get to the game.

I dealt with this stuff recently, working on a video game adaptation. It was a difficult situation, because we had to stick somewhat to the mythology of the game for fear of alienating the fans, but the storytelling was… shall we say… less than stellar. Thing is, the story in a video game is designed to enhance the gaming. Narrative decisions are made not because they make the most sense in terms of storytelling, but because they support the video game. Characters have specific attributes not because it makes them more fleshed out, but because their actions need to tie into a set number of controls. It’s kinda death to real narrative, and I’m actually impressed game storytelling is as good as it is, considering….

I’m sure video game storytelling will continue to improve over time, but the fact that it’s secondary to good gaming action, is the source of the problem.

I can’t help but notice we are still not being swamped by a torrent of mindblowing examples of shorts unique to youtube.

But I’m sure any minute now…

Ruari,

Your petulance is duly noted.

The internet has been with us long enough that it’s safe to assume you’re familiar with its logic and its functionality. I have faith that you’re a bright enough cookie to find something on a very large site that provides its own search engine.

I also have faith that if that was really all you cared about, you’d have done it already, so Johnny’s observation that responding to your initial request would create a ridiculous quagmire seems as apt as ever.

You will not find anything on youtube that is of better quality than The Godfather. You won’t even find anything as good as Godfather 3. But you will, from time to time, find a higher level of creativity than is exhibited in some Hollywood movies.

That is not a radical statement. It is not one that is so bold and so out there that I feel it requires the discussion be dragged down into specific personal taste. Maybe you loved Employee of the Month and Da Vince Code, but I’m sure you have your own notions as to what constitutes dreck.

It is no more unreasonable to search youtube.com for the writers, directors and actors of tomorrow than it is to search film schools.

But without them, you would be nothing.

You see, YOU need all this terrible dross to make YOU look good. Without all this endless tream of untalented media creators, your stuff would look just avergage.

But now, with all these boring, useless bloggers and myspacers and youtubers, you can point tor your measly 4000 or 40000 or whatever it is hits and claim to be better than the average crop.

Thank you ordinary, talentless humans for making me look like I have some ability.

Jesus, Ruari. What is it with the youtube thing?

As mentioned previously, there were numerous examples already spoken of (askaninja, for one) … and surely you’ve seen OK GO’s treadmill opus, which they recreated for VH1’s award show? That began on youtube …

In the end, it doesn’t matter if the best of youtube can compete with the best of movies … as Craig has mentioned, they are different creatures and therefore the audience for the respective entertainment is different. I get on youtube to watch NBA fights or a Keith Olbermann Special Comment - for me, it’s a resource.

But the truth of the matter is, it is very popular and develop execs track that shit … just like they do for video games (which brought us that wonderful film DOOM … yes, askaninja is much better than DOOM) comic books (V FOR VENDETTA) and magazine articles (the Russel Crowe kidnap movie) … they’re not looking for movies, they’re looking for something or someone to turn into movies THAT PEOPLE WILL LIKE, like as much as they do youtube … and while most of it is crap, it’s not outrageous to say that some people, even a small number, may be doing something excellent there.

Same can be said of hollywood. Or New York publishing. Or comic books. Or manga.

Or short films. And by short film, I mean short film, not a youtube video. Can the best short film compete with the best feature? No. And I’ve seen a whole lotta crappy short films. But some are good. Some get nominated for an Oscar and lead on to other careers and, one hopes, if one can make a good movie.

But the point is that the best of one is automatically better than the worst of the other, when it comes to entertainment. askaninja is much better than the movie DOOM and George Lucas In Love is much better than, well, PHANTOM MENACE (sorry George). At least if one believes in a quantitative quality when it comes to story-telling and entertainment, as I do and I think Olson does.

Yeah, I believe in quantative quality in storytelling too, and if Askninja is the pinnacle of creativity on youtube then we really are in trouble. The official ninja website on the other hand, at www.realultimatepower.net, now there’s a website that get’s me totally pumped - now that the the definition has since loosened to not just include “youtube filmmakers” as Josh originally said, but “anything on the internet.” But I can’t help but notice that the goalposts have shifted. Unless when he said “youtube filmmakers” he really meant to say “stuff on youtube” which is a completely different thing. Get it? There’s a difference between someone calling themselves a “youtube filmmaker” and a filmmaker whose short film ends up on youtube - the second category can include almost anything, since almost anything ends up on youtube.

Moving on…

You’re splitting infinities, dude. His point was that the best of the web is better than the worst of hollywood features, wasn’t it?

How is that hard to disagree with? The best video games are better than DOOM the movie, and the best comic books are better than CAT WOMAN (sorry Rogers) and the best short films, be they youtube or 35m, are better than WHITE CHICKS the film, better if only in terms of time spent on entertainment …

Don’t see what riled you up so much about Olson’s comment …

ack! Typing too fast.

I meant to write “How is that hard to agree with?” to begin the second paragraph as opposed to what came out.

My bad, dawg …

Gnnn. This place is like a vacuum…. Can’t escape…. Can’t let stuff go… turning into… Larry David.

Just bugs me slightly when someone refuses to cite examples to back up their statement, and the statement “evolves” so that any example will do (even if the range of examples in the original statement was zero)

Not that hard to understand. But you are right it is splitting infinities, so… moving on.

I think… what exactly do you mean by splitting infinities? (Oh jesus, make it stop!)

btw I look forward to any user generated youtube content that’s as good as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

Now you can leap down MY throat (as Josh was worried about) and say it’s not goodhahahayousuck all you like. But if you say that, are wrong, because as we’ve said, there is such a thing as quantative quality, and this sketch is superb. And I stand by it.

If I see any new stuff that debuts on youtube that I think is this good, I’ll have no qualms about saying it either. But at least we have a starting point for something that’s GOOD to discuss. Anyone see any user generated sketches as good as that?

ask a ninja is NOT as good as that. By the loosest definition of the terms argued, that clip counts as a youtube movie, and I’ve already defeated my own argument. (even if it wasn’t made for the internet, and even if it was uploaded without copyright permission from the authors)

It’s a pretty fucking good sketch, though, innit?

R.

Ruari,

“Just bugs me slightly when someone refuses to cite examples to back up their statement, and the statement “evolves” so that any example will do (even if the range of examples in the original statement was zero)”

Jesus. Really? You want to keep harping on this?

Specific examples do not matter. Even if you hate every single thing you see on youtube, it doesn’t change the fact that there’s an audience for it, and that there are people who believe some of what you see on it to be superior to some of what’s found in theaters. The point is not what you or I think about this stuff. The point is that there is clearly an audience that thinks it’s pretty damn good, in some cases, better than what’s coming out of Hollywood. That won’t change if I send you a link to something you think sucks.

The point of the discussion is NOT to get bogged down in arguing over whether or not Eugene Mirman’s latest video is funnier than Ricky Bobby. That’s completely, absolutely, fucking OBVIOUSLY irrelevant. I would argue that several of the top grossing movies of the year suck ass so hard it hurts to look at them. I would NOT argue there’s no audience for them. Clearly, they work in the way in which they are meant to - they attract an audience.

“If I see any new stuff that debuts on youtube that I think is this good, I’ll have no qualms about saying it either. “

That’s great, but has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

“ask a ninja is NOT as good as that.”

In your opinion. And even if we could all agree one way or the other…. it would have nothing to do with this discussion, and nothing to do with the facts.

Olson, I keep thinking we gotta be related by blood or something … was your old man a traveling salesman, and if so, did he pass through Iowa?

If so, that explains much and I’d better get my ma on the phone, pronto!;)

Hmm, well, I came in late to this whole argument. I whole-heartedly agree with what Craig said in the main post regarding Time’s “Wow-gee-aren’t-you-our-readers-the-smartest-most-bestest-people-in-the-whole-friggin-world” attitude. The phrase “beating the pros at their own game” got me angrier than anything else I’ve seen this year (though there’s a good chance something will come along to surpass it.) I spend a fair amount of time on the net, but can live without out it most days. I’ve spent time looking at nostalgia sites for old TV shows I loved, sifted through pages of googles and blogs to find that one link to the out-of-print soundtrack file I desperately want, I’ve wasted many hours sat here typing and clicking. But -

I’ve never once felt the inclination to look around YouTube for pleasure. I go there only when there’s a trailer or music video, or someone reccommends there’s something I should check out - which is generally a trailer or a music video anyway. But as a substitute for a great movie that’s been written and directed (and possibly stars Michelle Trachtenberg, though that isn’t essential) and planned with more than a little forethought than gee-whiz, let’s grab a camera and see what funny shit happens - which I call the Harmony Korine factor - than you can forget about it.

That said, I’m in the early stages of a project that should involve YouTube majorly. I’m in the middle of writing a movie (feature, at least 80 mins) that I’m going to shoot on HD DV and then chop into parts and release it on YouTube, MySpace, wherever free I can find to put it, and self-promote the hell out of it, and then hopefully somebody in the industry might see it. UK/US, I’m not fussy, though I do only speakee the English. Now, before you all get to thinking I’m one of Craig’s brilliantly described Joe McCheetobreath’s, let me say this a decision I’ve made after five years of spec-writing and short-making in England. I’ve written a couple of damn good specs (and yes, I am pretty arrogant about it), and I’ve had agents tell me that. And in the very same paragraph they tell me they don’t take on new clients who have not had any previous success in getting scripts produced. How I’m supposed to do that without an agent to send the scripts out…well, fuck it if they want to make things hard.

So, my next film goes on the net, hopefully gets seen by a few people, and at the very least someone who might offer me some damn representation. BUT, and here’s the thing - I am working my creative ass off on this. This screenplay is going through more work than any I’ve ever written. I’m making sure the pace, the characters, every little detail in every piece of dialogue is the best it can be. And that’s because I want anyone who watches it to think “Fuck, that was good.” Those exact words. I’m not about to waste people’s time if they’re kind enough to sit through my work. I did enough of that with my truly awful first shorts at university. Thing is, one day, people will be paying to see my movies, and I don’t aim on producing crap to open wide on 3,500 screens. This isn’t me trying to “beat the pros at their own game”, this is me trying to join the fucking pros and start playing for them (god, that’s an awful corny line - remember never to use that again!)

Anyway, rant/self-promotion over with. I guess my take is, I don’t think YouTube changes a thing in this business, but it’s a useful medium for the distribution of occasionally interesting items. So Time can go shove their “Man of the Year” shit. And I hope Craig, you take heart that one person out there using YouTube is at least trying to do it well.

Josh there were specific examples listed in Craigs article, and their merits were discussed. So it’s pretty relevant, even if you don’t want to talk about them. The Harry Enfield clip I posted, yeah it’s my opinion, it’s also supported by audiences who have actually paid to see it, high audience ratings, and critical consensus. For the same reason, if you mention the Godfather as being good I wouldn’t just say “well that’s just your opinion” and therefore irrelevant. If quality or merits come into the discussion at all, of course examples are relevant. I’m curious why you would say one thing is good or bad, and the other is just opinion. Then say opinion is irrelevant.

If youtube started charging to view their videos, the audience would disappear. For that reason I don’t buy that audience’s consider stuff on youtube superior. (in general) But I agree that specific people think specific things on youtube are better than specific scenes, in specific movies. In general.

Harping /off.

Simon,

A word of advice - the minute you think you’re unique, you’re done for. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard some executive or producer say, “Sure, I get it, but will the audience?” I write with the certain knowledge that I am not unique. If I’m interested in something, it’s a safe bet there are a million or more people just as interested. Jeffrey Dahmer was unique. I am not. You are not.

Which leads me to this - do you truly believe you’re the only person who’s doing what you’re doing? You just made the point I’ve been trying to make. Sure, there’s a lot more crap to wade through to get to the good stuff, but there’s good stuff out there. And you better believe I’ll check out your work on youtube a long, long, long time before I plunk down money to see the next Dan Brown adaptation. Cos, see - there’s a chance yours will be good.

Ruairi,

I understand your point. It’s simple. It’s easily grasped. It has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. I’m tired of trying to explain a simple point that’s clear to others here but not to you. Either make an effort to grasp what’s being said, or don’t. But I’m done responding to your comments in this thread until you make that effort.

“For that reason I don’t buy that audience’s consider stuff on youtube superior. (in general) But I agree that specific people think specific things on youtube are better than specific scenes, in specific movies. In general.”

YouTube is not a show or even a channel. It’s a depository. Ruari, it’s like you’re trying to argue against Photobucket being a superior photographer to Ansel Adams. Or LAX long-term parking being a better car than a Ford.

And whether people would pay to watch YouTube or not is irrelevant. I bet less people would watch GREY’S ANATOMY if it weren’t free, but since it’s broadcast on free TV that’s hardly a concern. Millions of people watch it. Millions of people put up with 8 minutes of commercials in order to watch it.

Just like millions of people watch YouTube videos everyday. This isn’t something you can argue against. It’s an actual, verifiable phenomenon. And just like free TV, advertisers pay big bucks to sell their wares on YouTube, Google, and all the other video hosting sites.

Like it or not, internet videos are extremely popular with a large segment of the population. Most of it is bad, some of it is great. I personally like Yacht Rock. And yes I’d rather watch an episode of Yacht Rock than You Me and Dupree. It’s funnier. Regardless of production value or acting ability, it achieves in its goal of entertaining an audience. Whereas YM&D failed miserably.

Andy Milonakis would not have a career if it were not for internet videos. Neither would the Lonely Island guys. In fact SNL probably wouldn’t be on the air if it weren’t for internet videos. And the savage beauty of it is that there are NO gatekeepers.

Stop being an elitist. There are 16-year-old emo kids with camcorders out there who are funnier than you, more talented than you, better than you. And eventually someone’s going to see their movie on YouTube and figure it out. Deal with it.

Josh,

Thanks for responding to my post. Please rest assured, I make no claims and suffer no delusions of being unique. I’m sure as I type this that there are four or five (or forty or fifty) first time features going up on youtube, and the majority of them more than likely have a lot more budget and a lot more crew than me. Which would not be surprising, given my crew is me, and the budget is whatever I end up having to spend.

The only thing I claim uniqueness on is my script, in that I’ve never seen this story before. Or at the least, I’ve never seen this story tackled in this fashion before. One of my lecturers used to tell me, if you can find that subject no-one’s written about before, and you write it well, your movie will work.

But please don’t think that means I believe I have this esoteric, wonderful, magical idea that has only ever occured to me ever, and aren’t I clever because I thought of it first. I’d never dare take that stand with my work. I just like this script a lot and I think other people will too. All I’ve ever hoped is the films I write will appeal to and reach the biggest possible audiences, and that they’ll dig them. Due to my difficulty in finding a rep in this country, I figured this might just be the next best way to do that. (I’ll also be looking into sending the feature version to festivals, but that’s a whole other game.)

Anyway, first I have to finish writing the damn thing! Thanks for your words, and I look forward to you watching my movie for free rather than hitting the next inevitable Brown adaptation that comes down the pipe. It’s a better way all round.

Simon,

I think you slightly misunderstood my point. I wasn’t running down your film. I was addressing the fact that you were chiming in with the anti-youtube chorus, and yet were planning on trying to make a really good movie that would be seen on youtube. Which sort of contradicts your initial thesis.

As for your lecturer, thanks for reminding me why I dropped out of film school after a year. A subject no one’s written about? Ay yi yi. Shakespeare managed to do all right writing about crap other people had already written about, and so did Paddy Chayefsky, and even Dan Brown.

Just like millions of people watch YouTube videos everyday. This isn’t something you can argue against. It’s an actual, verifiable phenomenon.

Millions of people watch user-generated content on YouTube every day???

If you exclude all the SNL and Britn-y clips and other rips from the MSM, I doubt it is anywhere near that figure.

ps: I probably missed the point entirely, but www.askaninja.com is the official site.

Millions of people watch user-generated content on YouTube every day???

If you exclude all the SNL and Britn-y clips and other rips from the MSM, I doubt it is anywhere near that figure.

Uh, broughcut, take a look at the YouTube front page. 10 user-created videos with almost 5 million views between them. All but 2 of the videos had been uploaded within the last week. And that’s just 10 of the who knows how many videos on youtube.

And the ONLY clips SNL allows on youtube are the Lonely Island videos. And the Lonely Island guys wouldn’t be writing for SNL were it not for their home-brewed internet videos.

Ronnie:

What, like the minute-and-a-half of footage of frozen tree branches?

Yeah, Hollywood’s trembling.

Meanwhile, I just watched American Idol, along with fifty bazillion other people. That show, oddly, proves my point in the most pure way. It’s Hollywood entertainment about the fact that most people suck and shouldn’t be entertaining anyone.

Ever.

This may be why I enjoy it so much.

Josh: What you are saying is not exactly rocket science either. Took issue with the way you said it, not what you meant.

Ronnie: People pay to buy whole series of Greys anatomy on dvd in addition to advertising revenue from tv screenings. The difference is you don’t have to watch ads on youtube, and it’s making no money, and it never has. There are people that seem to think “wow, it’s so popular - it’s bound to make money eventually” But that just ain’t happening. However popular it is now, Youtube is either going to have to change or go the way of the napster. It’s not a workable business model. Right now teams of men are furiously trying to figure out how this incredibly popular, free, financial black hole can make a profit. It’s incredibly popular right now, but unsustainable in it’s current form.

“Stop being an elitist. There are 16-year-old emo kids with camcorders out there who are funnier than you, more talented than you, better than you. And eventually someone’s going to see their movie on YouTube and figure it out. Deal with it.”

Yeah, and if they are any good, you might even call them “elite.”

Deal with it? huh…? You make it sound like I perceive it as a threat or something. I look forward to it. I have no doubt it will happen. Just ain’t there y