ODEMAX - where is the info?

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

Someone needs to do a RED SWOT analysis.

My take -

RED is doing well on the acquisition front. Some improvements would be great - LUT generator from RED, for eg., but basically, with DRAGON in the wings, its doing well.

RED is not doing well on the post front. Other threads expound more on this.

RED is being distracted by the distribution end. This game is big, and RED should play it. For the sake of indie filmmakers like myself. But it should be on the backburner. Priority should be Post. Give us something that makes Post with RED acquisition a non-event, flexible, and frankly, nothing to write home about (as in, no one has any complaints, even if they don't have any praise). Ofcourse, if people come around to singing praise of RED post workflow, then hey, nothing would make me happier.

 

[Todd T]

One more hinderance for alternative venues, such as restaurants, for showing movies would be local laws and regulations.
In NYC you MUST have a Projectionist license ($200 + written exam) to operate motion picture display equipment or any connection therewith, in any place of assembly, public or private.

Can anyone else chime in on local laws a regulations for your local markets?

 

[roryhinds]

One thing that isn't being discussed here is how budgets for films and their marketing spends are not transparent to the actual money spent.
Hollywood's creative accounting is based on hidden fees and making sure the films never go into profit.

With no honesty in the film business how are we to trust what is said and stated as budgets spent.

Indies need to be both street smart and technology wise and fight to the death to make it work for them.
We are in such a great time of change and there is an opportunity for those that see it.

Look around us... George Lucas sells his empire and retires from filmmaking, Rhythm & Hue's filing for bankruptcy, Soderbergh resigning, Digital Domain....
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise something is majorly wrong.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Indies need to be both street smart and technology wise and fight to the death to make it work for them.
We are in such a great time of change and there is an opportunity for those that see it.

Couldn't agree more. I think the Hollywood studio business will meander along and do what it does; some success, some failure. But along the edges, the indie business can gain a foothold and develop as a viable industry. Indie filmmakers aren't likely to prosper on the scale of Lucas, Spielberg, Katzenberg, et al, but it may be possible to make a normal living as a talented, prolific indie in the future.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

One more hinderance for alternative venues, such as restaurants, for showing movies would be local laws and regulations.
In NYC you MUST have a Projectionist license ($200 + written exam) to operate motion picture display equipment or any connection therewith, in any place of assembly, public or private.

Can anyone else chime in on local laws a regulations for your local markets?

I would guess this will not stand as a major issue. If you are willing to "play the game," $200 and a little time, or hiring a "projectionist" won't be a big deal. Then there's the potential to ignore the rule. Someone will find a way around such a tiny impediment. Such is the American entrepreneur! :smiley:

 

[mark haflich]

I couldn't find a definition for what constitutes motion picture equipment. Just a gut feeling, but I think where film isn't involved a digital projector wouldn't be considered as such. My guess is that restaurants projecting TV games don't have a projectionist with a license. What would be the public interest in having the law applied to digita?. I dont know when the law was enacted, but my hunch is that it is an old law enacted when there was only film as a medium for movies. There are fire hazards plus the public not being able to see a film if something happened like a break in a reel.

 

[Elsie N]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/08/movie-studios-sign-on-for-satellite-based-digital-delivery-to-th/

"five major studios have signed on with the Digital Cinema Distribution Coalition (DCDC) to use its satellite distribution network. Lionsgate, Universal, Disney, Warner and Paramount are all on board with the scheme, which says it will provide participants
access to "a host of delivery options" as digital projection becomes increasingly common. "

....

"saying the network is expected to reach 300 locations when it launches this summer, all of which will be equipped with an appliance from video distributor KenCast. The satellite end of things is being handled by EchoStar/Deluxe,"

It seems to me that the train departed, and Odemax is not in it.

I think you have a misconception about ODEMAX. They differ from what you reported above in that while ODEMAX can do feature movies to theaters, their service is also useful for small groups of content watchers including bars, churches, businesses, advertisers... From the sounds of it the DCDC satellite distribution network is simply a means for delivering studio content to the usual theaters. In other words, streamlining their current delivery model.

And while that may mean they won't be using ODEMAX to distribute studio features, ODEMAX will still be relevant to the Indie movie maker who follows the Tyler Perry model of content creation.

 

[M Most]

What would be the public interest in having the law applied to digital. .

Since when are laws about the public interest?

 

[mark haflich]

I think you have a misconception about ODEMAX. They differ from what you reported above in that while ODEMAX can do feature movies to theaters, their service is also useful for small groups of content watchers including bars, churches, businesses, advertisers... From the sounds of it the DCDC satellite distribution network is simply a means for delivering studio content to the usual theaters. In other words, streamlining their current delivery model.

And while that may mean they won't be using ODEMAX to distribute studio features, ODEMAX will still be relevant to the Indie movie maker who follows the Tyler Perry model of content creation.

Tthere is no can. There is no is useful. Until further notice it is defunct. kaput. By not responding to our emails they know we would so post. They are gone.

Mark is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Not really and Odemax was nothing more than a not really. They don't deserve any further discussion or speculation. They are dead. Move on. And if they should rise, they can go to hell based on the way they have treated us all. They have shown their true nature and the damage is irrepairable. Others will arise and I am sure they will know how to treat us.

 

[mark haflich]

Since when are laws about the public interest?

If the law is silent there are certain rules of statutory interpretation that a court would use.

 

[Elsie N]

Tthere is no can. There is no is useful. Until further notice it is defunct. kaput. By not responding to our emails they know we would so post. They are gone.

Mark is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Not really and Odemax was nothing more than a not really. They don't deserve any further discussion or speculation. They are dead. Move on. And if they should rise , they can go to hell based on the way they have treated us all. They have shown their true nature and the damage is irrepairable. Others will arise and I am sure they will know how to treat us.

'-) '-) '-)

I get that you may be trying to goad RED or ODEMAX into responding by posting outlandish statements. (I hope you are successful because I would like an update too, but I think you are just pissing into the wind '-)

 

[Bill Anderson]

Some relevant moments regarding business models, distribution, and more, in this excellent doc "Press Pause Play":

http://vimeo.com/channels/presspauseplay

"The digital revolution of the last decade has unleashed creativity and talent in an unprecedented way, with unlimited opportunities. But does democratized culture mean better art or…."

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

One thing that isn't being discussed here is how budgets for films and their marketing spends are not transparent to the actual money spent.
Hollywood's creative accounting is based on hidden fees and making sure the films never go into profit.

With no honesty in the film business how are we to trust what is said and stated as budgets spent.

Indies need to be both street smart and technology wise and fight to the death to make it work for them.
We are in such a great time of change and there is an opportunity for those that see it.

Look around us... George Lucas sells his empire and retires from filmmaking, Rhythm & Hue's filing for bankruptcy, Soderbergh resigning, Digital Domain....
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise something is majorly wrong.

It's all going to change for the better. Transparency is going to win over greed. I know it can't happen fast enough ... but it's happening more every day. The MAJOR PLAYERS of tomorrow are NOT the MAJOR PLAYERS of today.

Hollywood has screwed itself to wall with it's greed. The Matrix has not broken even yet? In 2013? Really? How these guys even look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me.

Follow the talent. The talent will go where the deals are more transparent. The audience will go where the talent is.

 

[Bill Anderson]

It's all going to change for the better. Transparency is going to win over greed. I know it can't happen fast enough ... but it's happening more every day. The MAJOR PLAYERS of tomorrow are NOT the MAJOR PLAYERS of today.

Hollywood has screwed itself to wall with it's greed. The Matrix has not broken even yet? In 2013? Really? How these guys even look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me.

Follow the talent. The talent will go where the deals are more transparent. The audience will go where the talent is.

We have been saying this since day one.
Shakespeare said it well in his sonnet 66.
He was tired of

"… right perfection wrongfully disgraced,

And strength by limping sway disabled,

And art made tongue-tied by authority,

And folly, doctor-like, controlling skill,... "


Nothing has changed in this regard, save for the names of the players.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

We have been saying this since day one.
Shakespeare said it well in his sonnet 66.
He was tired of

"… right perfection wrongfully disgraced,

And strength by limping sway disabled,

And art made tongue-tied by authority,

And folly, doctor-like, controlling skill,... "


Nothing has changed in this regard, save for the names of the players.

Shakespeare would have loved the Internet.

 

[Steve Das]

One thing that isn't being discussed here is how budgets for films and their marketing spends are not transparent to the actual money spent.
Hollywood's creative accounting is based on hidden fees and making sure the films never go into profit.
With no honesty in the film business how are we to trust what is said and stated as budgets spent.

...The Matrix has not broken even yet? In 2013? Really? How these guys even look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me.
Follow the talent. The talent will go where the deals are more transparent. The audience will go where the talent is.

Doesn't make sense to me why major studios would lie about profits. They are all part of publicly traded companies. And those companies only get their stock price up
when their movies make money. If the movies never made money the stock prices would tank and all the executives would lose their jobs.

Follow the money...there are like 4 or 5 Billionaires from Facebook all under the age of 40..or was that 30.
There is no such money that exists in the film business.
We are really living in the post exhibition era and profits are both small and hard to come by.
As for Matrix don't think Wachowskis or any actors complained...they all got their millions...even
though by the time the 3rd one came around the franchise was pretty much driven into the ground permanently.

 

[Elsie N]

Shakespeare would have loved the Internet.

I bet he would have owned a Ti R if he could. '-)

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Doesn't make sense to me why major studios would lie about profits.

Because if they artificially inflate distribution related expenses that they can deduct prior to sharing profits with producers, writers, actors and outside investors - they can keep more money (that doesn't belong to them). The movies make money. The studios keep more of that money if the film doesn't go into "net profit".

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

Because if they artificially inflate distribution related expenses that they can deduct prior to sharing profits with producers, writers, actors and outside investors - they can keep more money (that doesn't belong to them). The movies make money. The studios keep more of that money if the film doesn't go into "net profit".

In other words, they have two/three different books. One for IRS, one for stock holders, and another for profit participants. And ALL legal according to the rules of the land, btw.

 

[Steve Das]

In other words, they have two/three different books. One for IRS, one for stock holders, and another for profit participants. And ALL legal according to the rules of the land, btw.

OK...I see but really other than Kevin Smith haven't heard any actors or directors complaining about being underpaid or cheated.

In fact most wish they could only get hired by studios to do more studio films. Life in indies is far too harsh.
But the rising costs of production and promo have resulted in studios limiting their output mainly to
the Comic-Con crowd since it's a reliable and fanatic audience that still goes out to theatres and buys tickets.