Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Content is king

Roberto Lequeux

Roberto Lequeux

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
5,403
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU0UFSLGUsY&feature=player_embedded

Unfortunately some of this content is stolen from AC/DC, but it still illustrates the point. This might have been shot on a $300 camcorder, and it won't win any awards for cinematography or editing. Yet I sat through the whole thing and felt completely satisfied at the end. (if it did nothing to you try to kick something to get a sense of the impossibility of what is shown here)

That said, it would have been so much sweeter shot at 120fps 5k with a talented crew. :)

And one more thing! Please don't kill the illusion. I chose to believe these are a series of first attempts and if you say otherwise you will have killed my X-Mas. :beer:

But hey, if you already killed the illusion for yourself then we could point out that shooting this with film would have been a tad more pricey than shooting it digital. :cheers2:
 
while the world cup there was a competion in 'eintonnen'.
at the end you saw the craziest things from kids...this dude is good, but on youtube there a some better trickz :)
 
Richard Foster said:
I don't really follow sports Robert, is this guy a pro? If not why not? He's amazing.
Click to expand...

Right? :) The translation of the titles reads something like "We are looking for this guy to make him a citizen and put him on our team as a center forward and pk shooter!". Unfortunately it seems he is French. Damn youuuu France!!! :)

Looks like Rémi Gaillard is his name.
 
Heh heh, I used to drive my son crazy telling him stories about my school soccer days - mostly scoring against my own team. I'll pass this on.
 
According to viewers surveyed many times by many networks content is only about 45% of why people watch TV. Aesthetics are a big part of it.
 
Wonder if there was a differentiation made between active and more passive viewers.

It goes without saying that I agree with aesthetics being a big part of the experience. Art is inception and execution. Both can go great or terribly wrong and the end result is the sum. Of course I also believe that all types of art can stand on its own; it is art if it can. I am partial of course, and we all have our preferences. I am very heavy on execution though, and I hope "Content is king" wasn't taken in an offensive way. The title might have been a bit too sensational. :blushed: But hey, hopefully we'll get some people telling me why I am horribly mistaken and we'll get a conversation going. To be honest I was just really amazed at the shots (kicks) that guy made and immediately wanted to share it, and I might have rushed the post and title. I edit myself a lot (writing is re-writing rings true with me) but you can't change titles. xP Hope I didn't offend anyone, but if I did just remember one thing: I am always right, and everyone else is wrong, unless of course they agree with me. ;)
 
Roberto -content IS king...if you're a serious filmmaker -i.e. you make your living and pay your mortgage and feed your family solely as a writer, or producer, or director (or likely some combination thereof as I do) you have to understand audience, and that goes to eyeballs, which justifies the decision for a commissioning editor who just plunked down a few hundred thousand dollars or more for you to deliver something that will generate ad revenue, and they get to keep their job.

I don't make stuff for 'arts sake' -I create it because I think I've got something useful to share with society, and for some reason people at networks or distribution companies believe that too, that it's worth paying for, and in turn they can make money from it. Is it the sole motivation for what I do? Absolutely not -it's about the message, but you have to know your audience, and perhaps that is how one frames the question of content as a marketable element versus strictly art.

Are there inherently beautiful or artistic sights and sounds in my films? Of course, but it's to serve the narrative and not to fulfill some self-indulgence. Life is too short.
 
Jeremy Torrie said:
Roberto -content IS king...if you're a serious filmmaker -i.e. you make your living and pay your mortgage and feed your family solely as a writer, or producer, or director (or likely some combination thereof as I do) you have to understand audience, and that goes to eyeballs, which justifies the decision for a commissioning editor who just plunked down a few hundred thousand dollars or more for you to deliver something that will generate ad revenue, and they get to keep their job.

I don't make stuff for 'arts sake' -I create it because I think I've got something useful to share with society, and for some reason people at networks or distribution companies believe that too, that it's worth paying for, and in turn they can make money from it. Is it the sole motivation for what I do? Absolutely not -it's about the message, but you have to know your audience, and perhaps that is how one frames the question of content as a marketable element versus strictly art.

Are there inherently beautiful or artistic sights and sounds in my films? Of course, but it's to serve the narrative and not to fulfill some self-indulgence. Life is too short.
Click to expand...

Ironically, I was thinking pretty much this exact same thing when I watched a couple of those New York Times Actor's Acting things... I kind of loathed them a little for their wanton self-indulgence...
 
Is it really? Or is community the modern monarch of the media empire today.

With youtube and the media long tail, "poor" content is less relevant than content with a thriving community. (eg cat videos on youtube)

When people talked about Red democratizing film making (and still do), they overlooked the fact that in pre-internet/pre-facebook/pre-twitter/pre IM/pre smartphone era, film was expensive to make. Red made that cheaper. But by no means could ANYONE buy a Red and make a film. But today, the power to be a marketer is easy, and can be free, whereas in the past marketing the film could be more challenging or costly that making the content.

30 years ago you would laugh at the idea of a teenager in a basement conducting a global marketing campaign for a film. And with the beauty of baud and the speed of the electron that is a reality today. A kid with a iPhone can now attract millions of fans online, rather than marketing teams, front page headlines in the times and expensive superbowl ads.
 
George Butterfield said:
or take music videos where "the image" is everything, and content is nothing.
Click to expand...

Even if image or brand, is all there is to the content, for example street graffiti tags, the content is still simply the content, providing the community (audience/marketers/fans) is still the key between "having good content" and having relevance provided by people who consume said content.
 
noahvolek said:
Even if image or brand, is all there is to the content, for example street graffiti tags, the content is still simply the content, providing the community (audience/marketers/fans) is still the key between "having good content" and having relevance provided by people who consume said content.
Click to expand...

Right, but all you're really saying is that the audience (community) is more important than the content, which has always been the case... The problem is the presumption that having traditionally "good" content will garner a decent audience/community, which, as viral crap has shown, isn't necessarily the case.
 
We see content as king clear as day up here in Canada.

The CDN broadcasters make their money based on largely American made product...it's the programs with the stars and production value that are watched -also in part due to advertising and cross promotion on ancillary media. The CDN programs that are made cannot compete -the eyeballs are simply not there.

If not mandated by the CRTC (our FCC) broadcasters would not license any Canadian Content because it doesn't make money for them, and that is their bottom line. But the CRTC says they must or lose their ability to simulcast and profit from non-Canadian content, otherwise we'd lose any sense of cultural identity (a whole other topic) as we would be assimilated by the dominant American culture...

The same applies with Telefilm Canada and our feature films. They earn less than 5% recoupment on investment, and foreign films (mainly large independents and studio releases) dominate CDN box office -at 95% of revenue.
 
Jeremy Torrie said:
We see content as king clear as day up here in Canada.

The CDN broadcasters make their money based on largely American made product...it's the programs with the stars and production value that are watched -also in part due to advertising and cross promotion on ancillary media. The CDN programs that are made cannot compete -the eyeballs are simply not there.

If not mandated by the CRTC (our FCC) broadcasters would not license any Canadian Content because it doesn't make money for them, and that is their bottom line. But the CRTC says they must or lose their ability to simulcast and profit from non-Canadian content, otherwise we'd lose any sense of cultural identity (a whole other topic) as we would be assimilated by the dominant American culture...

The same applies with Telefilm Canada and our feature films. They earn less than 5% recoupment on investment, and foreign films (mainly large independents and studio releases) dominate CDN box office -at 95% of revenue.
Click to expand...

Just so we're on the same page, are you saying that Canadian productions inherently have to have more "good content" in them since we can't compete from a production value and/or stars standpoint?

As far as I'm concerned, the 5% recoupment is as funny as it is scary. The two ways to combat it are simple; either spend the money to get the stars/production value (which is possible; a lot of the stuff coming out of Quebec looks competitive) OR go with microbudget only projects since the end result will have a negligible production value hit, but recoupment will be that much easier to obtain. Of course, when telefilm considers $1.25mil ultra-low budget, I completely understand why they're only getting 5% returns.

Back on topic; duration also has a lot to do with it. I feel pretty neutral about soccer, so I can easily handle 5mins of sweet-ass trick shots... but I doubt if anyone but the most avid trickshot fans could take 90mins of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top