What can the #mannequinchallenge teach us about cinema?

It's the latest video craze to sweep the internet, and like similar trends (anyone remember the Harlem Shake?) the format has been used in a wide range of applications. Everything from shameless self-promotion to attempts to raise awareness of social issues has been communicated through the #mannequinchallenge.

After viewing several of these videos I was consistently impressed at how well the participants were able to hold their positions. Some of the more highly produced videos even included specialized props, costumes, and sets for the occasion. Although these are generally user-generated videos and are not meant to be "cinematic," I found that nearly all the #mannequinchallenge videos shared several important things in common with well-made cinema. It is therefore my hypothesis that the success of the #mannequinchallenge can be partially, if not entirely, attributed to some very important cinematic techniques that keep audiences watching films and television.


1. Story First

This Dog Just Won the Mannequin Challenge is definitely a clickbait headline, but it's also very important insight into the success of a video. When video trends start, viewers are willing to click on links simply for the novelty, however after a few views that novelty soon wears off and viewers want more. This is where story makes a big difference. Simply following a trend is not enough to engage an audience, but telling a story within the conventions of that trend will naturally engage viewers.

In the case of the video above, viewers aren't clicking on the link simply because it's a #mannequinchallenge video or because they like dogs, they're reacting to the story on which that video is built. People's curiosity is piqued when they hear of a dog doing something usually done by humans. That curiosity drives them to ask the "5 W's." Who? What? When? Where? and Why? (Remember these from middle school?)  The search for the answers to those questions is what makes story the most successful tool for audience engagement. When a video answers those questions, the viewer is rewarded with a feeling of satisfaction.

A good film, be it narrative or documentary, has a story that engages the audience the same way. It plays within the conventions of a different format but the underlying reasons for its success are the same. The audience is curious about characters and their motivations, they're curious about the worlds in which the story takes place, and at the very least, they're curious about series of events that make up the plot.

The success of the #mannequinchallenge videos is primarily due to the stories told by the content creators that made them.


2. Production Design > Image Quality

The majority of adults in the western world own a smartphone, which means they have access to a video camera at all times. Smartphone cameras are far from the most technologically advanced imaging devices available but their proliferation has made it possible for anyone to create popular moving image content. Successful content creators have ignored the limitations of their phone's image quality and instead focused on good production design to enhance their stories.

Let's look at another #mannequinchallenge video starring a dog (Hey, we're living in the age of sequels and remakes, right?) What sets this video apart from the last one is the clever use of production design, especially the shot of the dog with the Doritos. Things like that pull the audience into the story and enhance the overall quality of the video.

Now imagine if the creator of that video had spent all their money on a RED Weapon and a Steadicam operator. Imagine if they had gone so gear-crazy that they didn't even have enough left over for a bag of Doritos, it would have ruined the key moment of the video. Sure it would have been a very high quality image, but it would have come at the expense of what made the video memorable.



3. What's Seen is as Important as What's Unseen

In my opinion, this is is what makes the #mannequinchallenge work so well. Cinema is an art form, unlike other moving image formats like news or sports, cinema is more about presentation than representation. The art behind cinema is stagecraft, it's smoke and mirrors, it's slight of hand, it's obscurring just enough of the truth to allow of maximum suspension of disbelief and total immersion in the story. The #mannequinchallenge achieves this both in its technical conventions and in its implementation of story.

There's a legend associated with the production of Jaws, where Bruce, the film's animatronic shark, kept breaking down, which forced Steven Spielberg to re-write several scenes. This meant that the shark would have significantly less screen time than originally planned. What was originally seen as a negative consequence of technical limitations became one of the film's greatest assets. Both audiences and critics have praised Jaws for its suspense, most of which would have been lost had Bruce been working flawlessly. Because the shark remained unseen for so much of the film, the danger became much more ominous, and when the shark was finally revealed it was both scarier and more satisfying for the audience.

In the case of Jaws, because so much of the film does not feature the shark, the human imagination is left to fill in the gaps between story beats. The human imagination is the world's most effective storytelling tool, and when leveraged properly by filmmakers, can increase the quality of a film considerably. Think of a visual gore-fest like the Saw franchise versus a psychological horror masterpiece like Silence of the Lambs. There's a reason people enjoy the latter more, even after 25 years.

In the #mannequinchallenge videos, so much of the story is untold that the viewers' brains work overtime to compensate. What we see is a moment in time, a journey through a still image that raises more questions than it answers. We don't meet the characters, we don't know their origins or relationships, all we know is what we see. The stronger the video communicates its story, the more questions we as viewers ask while watching. What we don't know makes the video more engaging than what we do.


It may seem silly to try to find cinematic influence in user-generated web videos, but some of the reasons those videos work are some of the same reasons that make feature films successful.

My response to a film-based survey.

The other day I received an email from a fellow MA student asking for my opinion on "a world without cinema." I was forced to ponder the idea of a place without a movie theater. This is my unedited response:

For me the cinema is all about unique experiences. I'm from Salt Lake City and there's a certain energy to the summertime here that doesn't exist anywhere else. It's a hard energy to describe so instead I'll give you a taste of the sort of things that would be included in a typical summer night: Mexican street food, outdoor concerts, locally brewed beer and craft cocktails, outdoor art installations, restaurants featuring food from local farms and a combination of independent and classic cinema.

All of these activities take place in the early evening when the desert sun is at its hottest. The primary mode of urban transportation is one's bicycle, which means an evening like this requires a lot of stamina to survive. It is therefore the role of the cinema to give us respite from the heat, the brightness and the crowds. To provide a shelter from the physical, as well as the social, elements of summertime. 

Both the Salt Lake Film Society and Utah Film Center have wonderful programming during the summer. The section that fits into the above example is best is the "Summer Late Nights" series at the Tower Theater. Imagine a bike-borne evening as described, finished by a screening of a film like "Alien" or "Airplane!" An event which promotes social, economic and cultural interaction. 

Cinema keeps us mobile, keeps us simultaneously occupied and relaxed and keeps us together.

A world without cinema would remove many common denominators within youth culture. It's possible that some joy could be found from people watching the same films separate from one another and comparing experiences later, but it is most effective as a shared experience. It gives those of us living somewhere lucky enough to have a "Summer Late Nights" program a community experience like no other.

A world without cinema offers one fewer way of safely occupying the youth of the community. I'm not going to suggest that the presence of a cinema keeps kids from doing drugs but it's one of the few things that can be done legally by unsupervised teenagers.

Finally, it gives us reason to leave our own homes to experience something among people of similar interests. It's unlikely that we'll meet our new best friend or future spouse at one of these events but it is likely that we'll see the same people over and over again. Just that in and of itself promotes a certain psychological stability. Just knowing that the others who share the city with you are still here, riding their own bikes, drinking their own beer and forming their own opinions of a good (or even bad) film.

Clearly I'm waxing nostalgic but I stand by everything I said. We may spend years attempting to become better filmmakers, so let's not forget to become better at sharing the experience as well. Because a strong communal experience benefits everyone whether it takes place behind the scenes or on the cinema screen.

Chinese investment in Hollywood: Where is the money coming from? Who is it going to?

The following is an analysis originally written for my MA in International Film Business from the London Film School:

With a 40 percent rise in the first quarter of 2015, China’s box office is, for the first time, larger than North America’s, making it the largest market for cinema in the world. Although China is home to more than 1.3 billion citizens, almost four times the population of the US and Canada combined, it remained the world’s second largest cinema market due to a lack of infrastructure in the form of cinemas. Since early 2014, construction of cinemas in China has been as high as 13 per day, which has massively increased the opportunity for Chinese audiences to see films.

Innovative Chinese companies, such as the Dailan Wanda Group, noticed the gap in the market and invested massive sums of money building cinemas to serve what was previously a highly under-screened country relative to population. The purpose of this essay however, is to examine the innovative actions these Chinese companies are performing on the other end of the film value chain, in the development and production areas, and how they’ve invested in foreign, mostly US-based, companies to fill their new cinemas with content. Several case studies following Chinese investment in individual films, specialty services firms, other forms of media, and foreign companies are examined below, but first a short analysis of the history regarding Chinese/western business.

Doing business with China was mostly impossible in the mid-twentieth century until the foreign policy of the Nixon White House successfully opened relations. Since then a large amount of trade has taken place between China and the west, reaching never-before-seen levels in the late 1990’s when it seemed as though everything had a “made in China” label on it. This was due to cheap Chinese labor and China’s access to many natural resources necessary for materials production.

By the early 2000’s China was completing its journey from a developing nation to a fully industrialized one, eventually outpacing Japan as the world’s second largest economy. With new economic power and the rise of e-commerce, many western businesses, including Hollywood, looked to move into China to find new customers. There was one small problem however; the Chinese government wouldn’t allow it.

Despite being a highly successful, modern economy, China was and still is a communist country and not a free market. Therefore many of the proposals for western company’s expansion into China were met with refusal. This was unfathomable to many westerners who never considered that a communist government could be so economically successful. Instead they chose to remember the communists of the Eastern Bloc who, in the late 1980’s, failed so spectacularly that all of those countries no longer exist.

Western businesses failed to see the challenge of the Chinese market both politically and culturally and assumed they could operate there just the same as they had been operating everywhere else. The west was operating in a “push economy,” where a company itself can push into a new market. China however, was operating in a “pull economy,” only pulling in the business it wanted.

One of these businesses pulled into the Chinese market was Hollywood, the global leader in terms of cinema content quality and marketability. China had a weak film industry compared to neighboring Hong Kong, and required screen content to show in its slowly expanding network of cinemas. As a result, the Chinese government instituted a quota system for films, in which only a certain amount of films would be allowed in each year, as well as strict content guidelines making films subject to censorship. Because the Chinese quota was far below the number of films being produced by Hollywood and other western film producing countries, China could be very picky on which films were selected to play. Only the films deemed suitable were “pulled” through to Chinese cinemas.

The Chinese quota system is inherently limiting to foreign produced films but there is another way into the Chinese market that circumvents it: co-production. Instead of making a film with foreign funds and selling it to a Chinese distributor, as is often done in other territories, foreign films funded with a substantial upfront investment from Chinese distributors can be released in China under the same rules as local Chinese films. Therefore, rather than a foreign producer “pushing” his or her film to a Chinese distributor, the distributor has the power to “pull” the films it wants to make into the Chinese market.

This mostly occurs with large-scale action pictures such as Iron Man 3, Transformers: Age of Extinction, and Furious 7, because that’s what selling best to local Chinese audiences. Following the success of these films, several new Chinese/Hollywood co-productions have been announced including a sequel to DreamWorks’ Need for Speed, itself a major hit in China and an import under the quota system. The sequel will feature China as it’s primary location as well as several Chinese actors in prominent roles.

The first Need for Speed film was typical of a Hollywood mini-major, financed by DreamWorks, produced entirely in the US and featured American stars Aaron Paul and Michael Keaton with British actress Imogen Poots. The film played moderately well in the US but found its largest audience in China, grossing the equivalent of $66 million. That number has enticed three prominent Chinese companies: Jiaflix, China Movie Program Channel and 1905 Pictures to enter into a co-production with DreamWorks for the sequel. These are the same three companies that co-produced Transformers: Age of Extinction with Paramount in 2014, which grossed $330 million worldwide, $220 million from China alone. The promise of a more Sino-Centric sequel to the first Need for Speed film demonstrates the faith these companies have in the franchise and clearly demonstrates the evolution of Hollywood films as they become increasingly less American and more international to meet the demands of a global audience and sources of global finance.

China’s co-production activities are not limited to Hollywood alone. 2015’s European Film Market saw the debut of Jean-Jacques Annaud’s Wolf Totem, a Chinese/French co-production based on the 2004 Chinese novel of the same name. Such a production shows how the nature of Chinese co-productions are moving further away from the styles of their co-producing partners and closer to that of native Chinese cinema. Whereas Transformers: Age of Extinction was a Chinese co-production of a Hollywood film, Wolf Totem is a French co-production of a Chinese film. This is likely to be the case with the Need for Speed sequel as well, where the final product is closer to that of a native Chinese film rather than a Hollywood film. Therefore, China is moving toward a business model that pulls in outside finance for the funding of native content rather than one that pulls in outside content for local distribution.

With the Chinese film industry transitioning from an import economy to an export economy, it requires access to resources that work on a global scale and the best place to find those resources is Hollywood, the most established and mature industry in the world. Therefore, Chinese companies such as the aforementioned Jiaflix, China Movie Program Channel, and 1905 Pictures, as well as large entertainment conglomerates like Alibaba, Hunan TV, Huayi Bros. Media Group, Wanda Cinema and Tencent Media are finding Hollywood firms to partner with. These partnerships started with co-financing individual films but are now evolving to include direct investment by Chinese companies in Hollywood firms.

Q3 and Q4 of 2014, and Q1 of 2015 saw a huge amount of press announcing various deals between Chinese companies and Hollywood producers but very few of them actually happened. In his article in The Hollywood Reporter Michael Wolff writes about how the large amount of Chinese interest in Hollywood does not translate to a similar amount of money being invested in the industry. He attributes this to a cultural disconnect between Chinese and American business practice. He writes:

“The Chinese approach often is to show up and say: "We'd like to buy your company. Show us your books." The native response is, "Make me an offer, and no, you can't see my books." The result often is a nondeal deal, a willingness to begin a relationship but a resistance to make the first move — producing a term sheet that hardly commits anyone to anything.” (Wolff, 1)

            Wolff sites an anonymous executive who has had many business dealings with Chinese investors and describes how in China it is common practice to meet, discuss deal terms, take press photos, issue a press release and then decide whether or not to move forward with the deal. “They call it caution, we call it reneging.” (Anonymous, Quoted in: Wolff, 1) This has resulted in many supposed Chinese/Hollywood partnerships, few of which ever came to fruition.

            Former Warner Bros. President Jeff Robinov announced a partnership with China’s Huayi Bros. Media Group and his newly formed production company Studio 8. Huayi and Studio 8 released a term sheet along with major press coverage, which seemed to cement the partnership. Later however, Huayi announced that instead of providing Studio 8 with the $120 million in capital it had outlined in the term sheet, they would instead open a Los Angeles office of their own to evaluate films for investment on a per-film basis.

            This would have been a much different type of investment in the Hollywood infrastructure than the one previously outlined. It could have proven more advantageous for Huayi Bros, as having a Los Angeles office without any direct ties to US companies theoretically gives them the freedom of choice in which American films to invest. However, not making a direct investment in Studio 8 would have limited Huayi Bros. access to projects as well, as they have no established network in Hollywood.

            Although Studio 8 is a new venture, seasoned Hollywood professionals whose job it is to know exactly which films are being bought and sold worldwide run the company. The largest advantage of direct investment in a Hollywood company is the access to that company’s network. Huayi’s announcement suggested they were taking the risk of finding their own way in Hollywood.

            This is actually the second time Huayi has announced plans to partner with a Hollywood company and failed to deliver. In 2011 the Hollywood Reporter announced that Legendary Entertainment, the financing and production entity behind The Dark Knight and Inception, was opening an office in Hong Kong and would develop “global films” with Huayi. Warner Bros. would distribute the films worldwide except for China, where Huayi would serve as distributor. It was in effect a co-production agreement between Huayi and Legendary, albeit with a condition for Huayi to become a major shareholder in Legendary’s Hong Kong subsidiary: Legendary East.

            Huayi’s deal with Legendary was never finalized and Huayi then turned to Studio 8 for a second attempt at a Hollywood partnership. Now, after a whirlwind of press coverage, speculation and doubt, Huayi has finally succeeded in investing in a Hollywood company: STX Entertainment, owned by Bob Simonds.

            Huayi is actually STX’s second major investor from China. In 2014, a Chinese private equity firm called Hony Capital invested $65 million in the startup company. Michael Wolff highlights this event as one of the key moments in the history of Chinese/Hollywood collaboration in his article for The Hollywood Reporter, but disclaims that it’s lacking in significance because Hony Capital is not a media company. Therefore the transaction was purely financial and it’s very unlikely that Hony will have any creative influence over the team at STX.

            Because STX was already sufficiently bankrolled by an outside investor, Huayi Bros. was not responsible for committing upfront capital to the company itself and instead invested in STX’s slate of 18 films. This changes the arrangement that Huayi had negotiated with both Legendary and Studio 8, where the deal was for Huayi to invest directly in the respective companies. This would have meant a significantly higher risk to Huayi as it would have been a large shareholder in Legendary, and later Studio 8. Therefore, when Hony took on the risk of owning shares of STX, a relatively low risk for that type of company as it has holdings in many industries, Huayi was free to enter into a lower risk agreement that accomplished the same goals as the previous two deals, minus the risk.

            Investing in a slate of films rather than a single company helps manage the risk associated with film production and distribution. Just like real-estate investments or those in the stock market, investment in films works best when the investor holds a diverse portfolio. Therefore, spreading out a large investment across 18 films rather than investing it all in a single company helps maximize the investor’s chance of a good return.

            This change in risk holding could explain why the previous deals with Huayi, and others that failed to materialize with other companies, were never completed. It seems that the film industry is a risky business on both sides of the Pacific and although companies on both sides need what the other side has to offer, it’s not worth adding a significant amount of risk for. Better to let the bankers handle those commitments.

            That was the exact sentiment of Studio 8’s owner Jeff Robinov after his deal with Huayi fell apart. After ceasing discussion with Huayi, Robinov turned to Chinese conglomerate Fosun International, a firm similar to Hony Capital that has diversified investments in many areas. Fosun had invested in a film company before: China’s Bona Film Group, but had not made any overseas investments in that business. The result was a $200 million investment from Fosun into Studio 8, a number that allows them to control nearly two thirds of the company’s shares.

            Both Fosun and Hony were able to invest where the Chinese media companies were not because of their diversified investments in other businesses. Therefore, it seems as though Chinese investment in Hollywood is poised to come from financial companies rather than the media companies. This makes sense given the way the different types of companies are able to handle risk. The more risk a company takes on, the more diverse their investments need to be.

            It is because of this arrangement that Chinese broadcaster Hunan TV was able to come to a co-financing and distribution deal with Hollywood Mini-Major Lionsgate. A deal so large, it nearly doubles the $200M figure invested by Fosun in Studio 8. Lionsgate is already successfully bankrolled by a combination of equity investment and debt finance and has been in the film business far longer than start-ups like Studio 8 and STX. Therefore there was no need for a private equity firm to bankroll the company as it has consistently proven itself to be a going concern.

            With no need for outside investment in the company, Lionsgate was a prime candidate for a co-financing and distribution deal with a Chinese media company, an opportunity seized by Hunan TV. Hunan is generally considered to be China’s most progressive broadcaster despite being state owned and they are the second most watched channel in China. Hunan is also a parent to several other media companies, including feature film producers and distributors Leomus and TIK Films, as well as Hunan’s pay TV network, Hunan CATV.

            Under the terms of the agreement, TIK Films will front 25% of Lionsgate’s feature film production budgets, a number that could be as high as $375 million. TIK and Leomus have the option to distribute four of the co-financed films in China. Lionsgate will also co-develop and co-produce Chinese language films with TIK and Leomus with Lionsgate handling distribution of those films outside the US and China. There are also rumors that the Hunan/Lionsgate deal could evolve to include theme park entertainment as well.

            This sounds like a triumph of international capitalism but ultimately Hunan is a state-owned enterprise and some very specific deal points had to be made in order to come to an agreement. China’s strict censorship and regulatory requirements dictate strict guidelines for films. Hunan’s power may go as far as preventing certain Hollywood stars, whose political views differ from the Chinese government, from appearing in Lionsgate films for release in China. Furthermore the Renminbi is a currency with strict exchange regulations. Partnering with Lionsgate required Hunan to open a separate Delaware corporation specifically for currency exchange.

            Despite these restrictions however, both parties seem to have agreed that the partnership between the two entities is worth the trouble. To date this is the largest investment from a Chinese company into a Hollywood firm, which Lionsgate is happy to receive due to the market exploitation opportunities it opens for them. Why though, are Chinese companies so eager to invest in Hollywood? There are two possible answers.

            In recent years China has seen the emergence of a healthy middle class. No longer is China a nation of poor famers and factory workers, with its new position as the world’s second largest economy the Chinese are developing a more sophisticated consumer culture. A prime example of this trend is in the automotive industry. As few as ten years ago, cars in China were reserved for the wealthy while ordinary people made their way on motor scooters or bicycle. As the Chinese economy expanded however, the industrial complex matured enough to begin to manufacture domestic cars rather than relying exclusively on imports. The first Chinese cars were unreliable, unsafe and impractical. Now though, the manufacturers have learned from experience and the quality of Chinese cars has nearly caught up to other car-producing countries. This increase in quality has increased the demand for quality by consumers. No longer will a middle class family settle for a poorly built car when there are much better options in the market. The same is true for film.

            Film technology and technique was largely developed outside of China, meaning that the Chinese had to rely on imported technology to create screen content. With the expansion of the economy has come a surge of technology and practices developed in China. The native film industry of China was able to mature just as the automotive industry was, which has now increased consumer demand for product that is both native and of high quality. The Hollywood studio system has reigned supreme in the market for decades due to its development of the best talent and technology. Now that Chinese audience are demanding more from their films and television, it seems as though Hollywood is the obvious choice help Chinese companies bring it to them.

            China wants to be able to offer native films to its audience the same way Hollywood is able to offer them to theirs, they only want to be limited by what’s possible, not by what’s possible in their country. Despite the rise of the internet and the current information society, Hollywood’s best practices for development, production and exploitation remain a mystery to anyone working outside the system. The only way for one to learn Hollywood’s secrets is to climb the career ladder or to buy in at a higher level. Huayi Bros. and Hunan TV have chosen to buy in.

            The next reason that China wants to become a part of the Hollywood infrastructure is because of Hollywood’s success with the international market. Generally speaking, Hollywood films travel, Chinese films do not. China is looking to change that with its two new partnerships with Hollywood. As mentioned earlier, one part of the Hunan TV agreement was for Lionsgate to distribute Chinese films internationally, something that the Chinese companies haven’t been able to do on the same scale as Hollywood.

            China is looking to become a global leader in film production and distribution, they are not content with having a profitable native industry, which is why investment in Hollywood will continue until that goal is realized. An anonymous source quoted in an article by Variety Asia Bureau Chief Patrick Frater states:

“From now on [the Hollywood China connection] is going to get real, ultimately leading to the acquisition of a studio.” (Annonymous, Quoted in Frater, 1)

            In all likelihood this is a real possibility as the studios both want access to the Chinese audience and have the best collection of film talent and technology in the world. A Chinese-owned Universal or Paramount could increase the value of Chinese films worldwide while simultaneously providing a reliable source of funding to their slate of films. It could be the first step toward a truly global entertainment company. It is very possible that the world is headed for an era where instead of the two film industries being the Studio and Independent industries, they are instead the Worldwide and Regional industries. Two distinct industries for screen content, one global, one local.

Works Cited

Coonan, Clifford. 'China Box Office: Theater Takings Rise 40 Percent In First Quarter (Report)'. The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

Coonan, Clifford. 'China's Huayi Brothers, Enlight Report Better-Than-Expected Earnings'. The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

Coonan, Clifford. 'Lionsgate Unveils Film Financing Deal With China's Hunan TV'. The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

Coonan, Clifford. ''Need For Speed' Sequel In Development As U.S.-China Co-Production'. The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

Coonan, Clifford. 'Slower Chinese Economic Growth May Pose Challenges For Hollywood'. The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

Coonan, Clifford. 'Universal Film Chief Jeff Shell: "China Is More Exciting Than It Is Difficult"'. The

Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

Frater, Patrick. 'Inside The Lionsgate-Hunan TV Deal (EXCLUSIVE)'. Variety. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

McClintock, Pamela. 'As Huayi Brothers Eyes STX, Questions Surround The Proposed Marriage'. The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

Wolff, Michael. 'Michael Wolff On Hollywood's Disappearing Chinese Money'. The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

             

           

             

           

The Most Expensive Kickstarter Video Ever

After years of re-writes, concept art creation, script breakdowns and budgeting for our upcoming feature film LARP, my team and I needed one last piece of the puzzle before we could confidently place our film on Kickstarter.

Several ideas were discussed, including recycling proof of concept footage we had already shot in addition to some talking heads of ourselves asking nicely for money. After seeing the amazing video for Kung Fury however, we knew that our Kickstarter campaign would live or die based on our ability to make an amazing film. We needed to show the world that we were capable of handling a budget as large as the one we're asking for.

The goals of the video were three-fold: introduce our potential audience to the film's main concept, let them know how we would use their money, and demonstrate our cinematic skills. The script came to us from a writer/comedian friend of ours and was adapted by Nicholas Dunn, the writer of LARP, to better fit our newly outlined goals. Soon, several decisions were made that upped the production value of the project considerably. What resulted was most likely the most expensive Kickstarter video ever made.

We originally planned to shoot the entire video at a local elementary school auditorium because we had access to the space for free. However, that space did not have a grid and we would therefore need to bring in our own lighting gear. For the ease of lighting the video, we changed our location from the elementary school to a sound stage at Redman Movies, the local rental house. This space included pre-rigged DMX controlled Kino Flo's and LED lights as well as a green screen and the benefits of a sound-proof room.

Because all 3 members of our small company were written into the script of the film, we needed a crew besides ourselves. We immediately attached Margaret King, who has worked on Mad Men, 24, and Nip Tuck, as our Director of Photography. We had always assumed we would shoot on our own DSLR's but Margaret upgraded the camera package to include 2 Arri Alexas, a 12-lens set of Leica Summilux-C primes and an Angenieux Optimo zoom. She also rented a small grip and lighting package from Redman Movies.

Due to the green screen in our new location, our climactic shot, which originally required our actor to cut a table in half, was changed to a huge VFX shot with animated fabric, a fantasy background plate, a wind machine and a sword lighting on fire. To achieve this, we used a combination of Adobe After Effects and Blender.

Here is the final product:

So now you're thinking, what was the final cost for The Most Expensive Kickstarter Video Ever? Truthfully, pretty close to zero. Nearly all of our props and costumes were sourced from things we already owned. Our craft services was donated by Margaret's parents and the software was already purchased for use on our corporate projects.

What then of the cost of 2 Alexas and a sound stage? We paid for none of it. Redman Movies so graciously donated the use of all their equipment to us on the condition that when we raise our $80K budget through Kickstarter, we rent all the gear from them.

Therefore it's safe to say that The Most Expensive Kickstarter Video Ever is likely one of the cheapest thanks to the courtesy of people willing to help struggling artists find their budget and make their film. We managed to get this amazing amount of equipment and talent simply because we asked. This is the best example of the collaborative spirit of the film community I've ever witnessed and the reason most of us stay in the film industry today despite its challenges.

I'm eternally grateful to everyone who helped make this video for LARP and get it this far. Now, on to $80,000!

Sign Heist at Salt Lake Comedy Film Festival

This Wednesday April 9 is your chance to see Sign Heist play at the Salt Lake Comedy Film Festival, 7pm at the Broadway Centre Cinemas in Downtown Salt Lake. Tickets are $10. 

Starring:

Stuart W. Ford

Jeff Black

Directed by:

Connor Rickman

Produced by:

Topher Rasmussen

Original Score by:

Keir Schmidt

Sign Heist marks my first use of the Panasonic GH2 and Magic Bullet Looks which proved to be quite an excellent combination for this film. I was originally going to grade day-for-night but decided instead to go for a more "Bourne Supremacy" look instead.

Since shooting this film I have used the GH2 for countless other projects including the LARP sizzle reel, our award winning I am Downtown contest submission, TIC and Outlaws our two city-winning 48-Hour films, AMUSIUM's Favorite Game music video and Return to Encore my favorite test of my lenses and this camera.

The GH2 has been an excellent camera and has proven itself time and again as a superior imaging tool. Some credit goes to Andrew Reid of EOSHD who helped me navigate the menus and get the best possible image out of this camera. My GH2 has now been traded for credit at Adorama so I can buy the new Panasonic GH4. It was hard to say goodbye to such a loyal companion but I am excited for what the future holds. It leaves behind a great legacy of award-winners and entertainers and paves the way to what I hope is a bright future. 

Concept Art for LARP

Need something else to get you excited about Ex Machina Films' big announcement for LARP?

Behold! Concept art drawn by our good friend and author/illustrator of Cosmoknight, Rufus ZaeJoDaeus.

Be sure to follow @LARPMOVIE on Twitter for more updates. #foamandsteel

Leon

Cindel

Mina: The Seer

The Phantom Lord

Preston: The Chosen One

Teaser videos for LARP

LARP is one of those projects that gets mentioned here every once in a while but never seems to gain any traction. Well, I can't tell you exactly what we're working on right now, but here are a few things to help whet your appetite.

For updates follow @LARPMOVIE on Twitter.

The Giver

February turned into a surprising month with an opportunity to work on another studio feature. The Giver, adapted from the popular children's book, is filming 2nd unit in Utah after a massive shoot in South Africa.

The film stars Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Katie Holmes and Taylor Swift and absolutely NONE of them came to Utah. However, the up-and-coming Brenton Thwaites was here along with director Phillip Noyce.

The crew is shooting the film's famous sledding scene at the Brighton and Solitude Ski Resorts near Salt Lake City as well as an aerial unit in the Wasatch Mountains. They also have two sets at Redman Movies, (home of the Ex Machina Films office) one on the large sound stage and one in the back lot. 

Just released - check out the official trailer here:

Why I Enjoyed Need for Speed so much.

This post started out as an update of a previous post but I went into such detail I thought it deserved its own.

Check out the Need for Speed extended trailer here:

 This movie is exactly what you think it's going to be. Fast cars, police chases and just enough plot to keep you going. Although it wasn't the best move I've seen (far from it) I'd like to share a bit about why I liked it so much.

1. It's a great car movie. For fans of Bullitt, Gone in 60 Seconds, Vanishing Point etc, this movie really delivers. The Fast and Furious franchise has evolved into an action franchise with a decent ensemble cast but no longer seems to be about cars. (See here) This doesn't mean they are bad films, just no longer good car films. I'm all about Vin Diesel and The Rock kicking ass, but I miss sequences like Paul Walker's Supra smoking that black Ferrari on PCH. Need for Speed brings those moments back to the big screen.

2. They don't make movies like this anymore. Earlier in the year I participated in a workshop taught by SNL DP Alex Buono. The first big film he ever worked on was Twister which he admitted wasn't a spectacular movie but nevertheless he missed it because they simply do not make movies like that anymore. What he meant was that a film about a giant tornado was made with a huge amount of practical effects due to the limited capabilities of CG at the time. That scene where Bill Paxton's truck is being bombarded by hail was filmed with a giant wood chipper shooting ice at his moving truck. Those techniques add a certain amount of realism to the performances, which are also present in Need for Speed. The powerslides, jumps and the aforementioned helicopter stunt were all real. CGI is therefore used to enhance rather than to substitute and it shows.

3. There's no gratuitous sex. Usually car movies have scantily clad women everywhere and the lead characters find some reason to hook up. Need for Speed, however, doesn't fall into this trap. In this story there's no reason for the male and female lead characters to have sex, so they don't. This is about a million times better than watching an awkward sex scene that's been added purely for the sake of itself. It makes the characters feel like human beings and not objects of the audience's voyeur.

4. This story takes its time. Need for Speed is 2 hours and 10 minutes long. That's not necessarily a long movie but in this day of reduced consumption I'm surprised the studio brass didn't demand Scott Waugh to cut 40 minutes out of it. The point is that 2 hours and 10 minutes is just enough time to tell the story, it never feels rushed and yet it never feels like its lagging either. Nothing needs to be added or subtracted.

Unfortunately this film performed quite poorly at the US box office which means it's unlikely we'll see a project like this again anytime soon. It'll be back to 90 minute action flicks with tons of CG and gratuitous boobs which seems to sell although personally it upsets me.

Take my opinions as they are. I'm probably quite biased as a fan of car culture and a long-time player of the Need for Speed video games. Not to mention the fact that I worked on this film.

Need for Speed Superbowl Trailer Released!

Back in July 2013 I got a very exciting phone call. I was told to drop everything I was doing and drive to Wendover NV where I would get a chance to work on Need For Speed starring Aaron Paul, directed by Scott Waugh and Photographed by Shane Hurlbut ASC!

I immediately did what I was told and although my job may have just been to push an air conditioner around the desert so a particular starlet wouldn't sweat too much in the desert I was rewarded with many prizes.

• I got to meet Aaron Paul
• I witnessed a helicopter lift a car and fly it over the Bonneville Salt Flats
• I got to see the unreleased and unannounced 2015 Ford Mustang GT
• I talked to Shane Hurlbut about how I played poker with him at NAB 2010
• I got a per diem because I was technically an "out of town" worker
• I got my own room at the Peppermill Hotel and Casino which I stole toilet paper from

And now the fruits of my labor can be previewed!

UPDATE (03/19/14):
I've now seen this movie and it's exactly what you think it's going to be. Fast cars, police chases and just enough plot to keep you going. Although it wasn't the best move I've seen (far from it) I'd like to share a bit about why I liked it so much.

1. It's a great car movie. For fans of Bullitt, Gone in 60 Seconds, Vanishing Point etc, this movie really delivers. The Fast and Furious franchise has evolved into an action franchise with a decent ensemble cast but no longer seems to be about cars. This doesn't mean they are bad films, just no longer good car films. I'm all about Vin Diesel and The Rock kicking ass, but I miss sequences like Paul Walker's Supra smoking that black Ferrari on PCH. Need for Speed brings those moments back to the big screen.

2. They don't make movies like this anymore. Earlier in the year I participated in a workshop taught by SNL DP Alex Buono. The first big film he ever worked on was Twister which he admitted wasn't a spectacular movie but nevertheless he missed it because they simply do not make movies like that anymore. What he meant was that a film about a giant tornado was made with a huge amount of practical effects due to the limited capabilities of CG at the time. That scene where Bill Paxton's truck is being bombarded by hail was filmed with a giant wood chipper shooting ice at his moving truck. Those techniques add a certain amount of realism to the performances, which are also present in Need for Speed. The powerslides, jumps and the aforementioned helicopter stunt were all real stunts. CGI is therefore used to enhance rather than to substitute and it shows.

3. There's no gratuitous sex. Usually car movies have scantily clad women everywhere and the lead characters find some reason to hook up. Need for Speed, however, doesn't fall into this trap. In this story there's no reason for the male and female lead characters to have sex, so they don't. This is just about a million times better than watching an awkward sex scene that's been added purely for the sake of itself. It makes the characters feel like human beings and not objects of the audience's voyeur.

4. This story takes its time. Need for Speed is 2 hours and 10 minutes long. That's not necessarily a long movie but in this day of reduced consumption I'm surprised the studio brass didn't demand Scott Waugh to cut 40 minutes out of it. The point is that 2 hours and 10 minutes is just enough time to tell the story, it never feels rushed and yet it never feels like its lagging either. Nothing needs to be added or subtracted.

Unfortunately this film performed quite poorly at the US box office which means it's unlikely we'll see a project like this again anytime soon. It'll be back to 90 minute action flicks with tons of CG and gratuitous boobs which seems to sell although personally it upsets me.

Take my opinions as they are. I'm probably quite biased as a fan of car culture and a long-time player of the Need for Speed video games. Not to mention the fact that I worked on this film.