glitterfish.com

I can’t tell you where this came from, but I assure you it is real.

Dear [redacted],

I know that at this point in your search for an assistant you might have encountered prospects that are more experienced and perhaps even more qualified then myself. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to share with you what sets me apart from them, something that in retrospect I may have failed to do at our last meeting. In response to your looking for someone who’s job it was to make your life easier, I would like to offer an addendum. I would also dedicate myself to helping you do your job better. I am ready and eager to commit myself fully to helping you make the most of your career and your art. I see this opportunity to be your assistant as more than a job, I see it as an apprenticeship to a professionally successful artist, and I can assure you with utmost confidence, that you have not met with anyone who will work harder for you then I will. These words might of course ring hollow in your ears seeing as how that last statement has become something of a cliché, nevertheless it is as true a thing as I am capable of communicating to you through this barrier of professional anonymity. Also I would like to touch upon one of my more unique skills in order to better represent what it is I can offer you. As you might recall I have developed quite the working relationship with the company I interned for last summer (references I urge you to call), most notably because of my ability to quickly master new tasks through observation. You who are no doubt a practical man might find the concept of paying for a dog masseuse for your two aging dogs laughable, however should you commission these services just once from a professional and I were in a position to observe it, I could acquire this new skill in order to provide it for your animals in the future, and perhaps make their trips up and down the stairs a bit less painful. A little strange? Yes. But I feel myself forced to make an impression after the “cold read” that was our first meeting. If though, you are simply looking for a run of the mill assistant to handle odd jobs and office work I doubt I am your man. If however you are looking for one whose skills are a bit more expansive I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

Yesterday there was a preview for On the Lot on the official site and now it’s gone. I’ve been trying to find it elsewhere but it seems to have completely vanished from the internet.

Should I have applied? After all, Kelly Clarkson—years after she won American—is on the cover of this weeks Entertainment Weekly, enjoys critical success and has sold millions of records. Fortunately the show looks horrible and I doubt a horrible reality show is going to launch any careers. For instance, what is with these judges?

Actress, author and screenwriter Carrie Fisher (”Star Wars,” “Postcards From The Edge”), as well as directors/producers Brett Ratner (”Rush Hour 3,” “X-Men 3: The Last Stand”), Garry Marshall (”Georgia Rule,” “Princess Diaries,” “Pretty Woman”) and Jon Avnet (”The Starter Wife,” “Fried Green Tomatoes,” “Risky Business”), will serve as judges for the series’ two “audition” episodes airing Tuesday, May 22 9/8c and Thursday, May 24 9:30/8:30c on FOX. Judges for additional rounds will be announced at a later date.

Brett Ratner’s probably a pretty decent douche and Carrie Fisher is huge bitch. They could be good personalities but when was the last time you saw a reality show where the judges changed after the first couple of episodes?! Aren’t the judges part of the appeal of reality shows?! Aren’t Simon and Tyra the best part?

Most importantly, what self-respecting filmmaker would give a shit if Bret Ratner didn’t like your movie?

News Corp. and NBC announce partnership to create YouTube competitor.
• NBCU-News Corp.: More Like The Anti-YouTube Than YouTube Killer

The Venice Project is a secretive new video content delivery platform that has been getting a lot of buzz recently. Why is everyone talking about it? Mostly because it’s being developed by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstr the Scandinavian entrepreneurs behind both Kazaa and Skype. With a track record of delivering highly successful and disruptive technologies, many people believe that the Venice Project could leap frog the offerings of sites like Youtube. By combining essential aspects of the television experience with the latest Internet technologies, The Venice Project promises to “change the way people think about television.”

Or something. Honestly I don’t really too much about it other than it’s a P2P desktop app and all the tech blogs seem to be writing about it.

• Arstechnica: Will Venice Project be net neutrality’s calling card?
• Gigaom: Inside The Venice Project & Exclusive Screen Shots
• Gizmodo: Venice Project Hands On: This Is Going To Kill YouTube

The first picks of this years award season are trickling in. Its a year with no clear cut winners; critics seem to be defaulting to partisan favorites:

I find it sort of suspect that the Boston Society of Film Critics favorite is, guess what, The Departed. The film won four awards including best picture, director, supporting actor and screenplay. Also shocking is United 93’s win for best picture from both the DC Area Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle.

I’ve been telling people for weeks that Sacha Baron Cohen had award traction but nobody believed me! I’m stoked that Sacha tied with Forest for the Los Angeles Critics best actor spot. I love it when left field mavericks upset establishments. All my friends thought I was nuts but I voted for the Arizona ballot initiative that would have entered every voter into a one million dollar lottery as means of increasing turnout. Partially I voted like that because its hilarious, but I also did it because there’s lots of merit in compelling out of the box ideas.

Actually these films are all in my top 5 best films of the year. Personally, I think 2006 was one of the best years for movies in a long time.

When I was in high school for school spirit week, my friend Ryan and I dressed up as Boy Scouts for twin day. We wore two identical Class-A Boy Scout uniforms complete with short shorts, knee high socks, and brass on brass belt buckles. We had a great time mocking the Boy Scouts but ironically, the only reason we had all that crap was because Ryan and I had been in the Boy Scouts our entire lives. We were so hardcore that when we were twelve we both went to the National Jamboree.

After satisfying the necessary requirements, in conjunction with the MPAA and the RIAA Los Angeles area Boy Scouts are now eligible for a special patch in “respecting copyright.” To earn the patch, Scouts will have to do one of the following: visit a peer-to-peer file-sharing network to identify which files are illegal and which are legal; create a 1 minute movie explaining the importance of copyright protection; or go to a movie and after watching the credits explain to their counselor who is hurt by copyright infringement. You can read the full curriculum here.

Personally I would choose the “go to a movie” option because that sounds like it is the easiest. I would not pick the “make a movie” option because filmmaking is hard and it’s really expensive to get proper clearances for your music. On a side note, amongst Boy Scouts there is a patch trading activity where you trade interesting, rare, and vintage patches with one another. When I went to the National Jamboree the most coveted patch was the Marin County totally unlicensed “Yoda” Star Wars patch (Lucas Film has since licensed the image and the 2005 patches feature a trademark.)

Contrary to recent reports, the award is in fact a patch and not a full merit badge. Since it is a local initiative of the Los Angeles Council for the Boy Scouts of America and not officially sanctioned by the National Boy Scouts of America, becoming an industry shill will not get you any closer to your Eagle. Still, it’s a little disturbing that the MPAA and the RIAA are out there indoctrinating children with their anti-consumer, anti-progress, and draconian notions about copyright. As Cory Doctorow points out, there is no discussion about fair use, consumer rights, or how copyright law orphans creative work. I don’t think it’s bad for kids to understand that artists and industry should be compensated for their work, but I do think its wrong to inform kids about both sides of the debate. Plus, that patch is probably the ugliest patch I’ve ever seen and its a shame to make the Boy Scout uniform worse than it already is.

One of my biggest regrets is that I’m not an Eagle Scout. While I disagree with a lot of the organizations intolerant values, there is still something to be said about a kid who gets his Eagle Scout. More telling, there is something to be said about a kid who jumps through all the hoops and gets all the merit badges to be a Life Scout by age 14, and then doesn’t bother to do that one last step necessary to be an Eagle. But I digress…

Right on the heels of Mark Cuban’s comments that only a fool would buy Youtube, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google is in talks to buy the video portal:

A purchase of YouTube could give a big boost to the online video efforts of Google. YouTube commanded 46% of visits to U.S. online video sites in August, according to market research firm Hitwise. That compared to a 23% share for the video activities of News Corp.’s MySpace social-networking site, and 10% for Google Video.

Reports put the price at 1.6 billion. However, “talks” don’t atomaticallly mean there will be a sale. Go ahead and read why Arstechnica thinks its all sizzle and no steak.

Universal Music CEO Doug “Youtube owes us millions” Morris, must really be excited about the deal. Suing Google–who according to the article as off June had 10 billion dollars in cash–is a juicy proposition. I would be stoked if my intellectual property rights were being flagrantly violated. Here is the WSJ portrait of Chad “my company is not for sale” Hurley.

Founder of Youtube.

UPDATE:From Paid Content at the ONA Confab:

Mark Cuban, who recently made waves by suggesting only a moron would buy YouTube, is the afternoon keynote here. We talked beforehand and I’ll post about that later. He’s up on the podium now, Diet Cokes at hand, fielding questions in a straight q-and-a session. The first came from the NYTCO’s Vivian Schiller, who introduced him and kicked off with a Google-YouTube question. His response: “The minute that acquisition took place YouTube couldn’t be YouTube.”

Mark Cuban did not contact me about saving the theater exhibition business. Clearly, he is the moron. Nevertheless, he had some worthwhile stuff to say about YouTube…

Billionaire investor and dot-com veteran Mark Cuban had harsh words Thursday for YouTube, the online site that lets people share video clips, saying only a “moron” would purchase the wildly popular start-up.

Cuban, co-founder of HDNet and owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, also said YouTube would eventually be “sued into oblivion” because of copyright violations.

Sure, YouTube hosts copyrighted material but it isn’t facilitating piracy in the same way something like Napster was. So far YouTube has been aggressive in policing its content for copyrighted material. It has also worked to strike deals with content owners of content that has seen large-scale piracy like music videos.

“They are just breaking the law,” Cuban told a group of advertisers in New York. “The only reason it hasn’t been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue.”

Big money? There are plenty of movie studios, record labels and television networks out there with big money. I think nobody has sued yet because the MPAA has proved that lawsuits don’t stop copyright infringement.

Cuban is right that YouTube is more hype that profit potential. The site is a classic example of how traffic does not automatically translate into revenue. That being said, unlike something like Napster; YouTube has created value. Clearly there is not only a market for user-generated content but also a percieved value in YouTube as a viral marketing platform. But wait, he has something to say about that too:

In other remarks, meanwhile, the often-controversial Cuban also told advertisers that the reach of YouTube is limited, particularly when it comes to user-generated videos.

“User-generated content is not going away,” he said. “But do you want your advertising dollars spent on a video of Aunt Jenny watching her niece tap dance?”

“Somebody puts up something really good and you get, what, 60,000 viewers?” Cuban added during the event at Advertising Week in New York.

60,000 viewers?!?! Hell yes if that means its 60,000 of the right viewers. If of those people 10 are the assistants of studio execs or 2000 hadn’t read Glitterfish.com but would read it daily if they knew it existed.

But I’m a little fish and Cuban is talking to the big fish. The kind of fish who can sink YouTube. What good is YouTube for them? I don’t have a complete answer for that. All I know is that YouTube is a magical place that incubates talent, offers a tremendous amount of free publicity, and is eager to work with copyright holders.

Link round up:

• Original article at Cnet.
• Cuban’s first blog post on YouTube.
• Cuban’s rambling rebuttal to assertions that YouTube falls under safe-harbor provisions in the DMCA.

Billionaire Mark Cuban will hire you and all you have to do is convince millions of people to go see more movies.

How do you get people out of the house to see your movie without spending a fortune. How can you convince 5 million people to give up their weekend and go to a theater to see a specific movie without spending 60mm dollars.

Come up with a great idea that i want to use and I will come up with a job for you to make that idea happen.

Ehh…well I am under employed at the moment so why not give it a shot…here is my response to his open letter:

I love movies. I’m a filmmaker. I work in the film industry. However, I rarely see movies and never at full price. High ticket cost is the only reason I don’t see a movie every single weekend. I simply can’t afford it and only occasionally feel like the movie I saw was worth it anyways.

My solution is dramatically lower ticket prices combined with a same day DVD release that is sold only in theaters. Charge $25 to see a movie AND own give a copy of it to take home. OR, you can buy a ticket without the DVD for $5. A few months later. after the theatrical run, the DVD goes to Best Buy.

Family of Four:
1 DVD Ticket at $25 dollars
3 admission only tickets at $5
=$40

4 Tickets at $10
=$40

The consumer feels like they’re getting more value since they’re taking the movie home and you preserve the theatrical window by making the DVD only available in theaters.

I do not believe the answer is in marketing. If anything marketing is the only reason movies continue to make any money at all. Bad movies and high ticket prices are the reason movies don’t make money.

I’m response 703. I’ll let you know when Mark calls me in for a face to face.

There is a counter-point over at Movie Marketing Madness to Steve Rubel’s post about the marketing campaign for Snakes on a Plane.

I don’t think SoaP will come close to being an all out blockbuster like Pirates was this weekend. Even though the unofficial community marketing has much deeper penetration into online community that community is starting to grow weary. It’s simply a case of this going on too long. Where Pirates coverage was largely confined to official news and mainstream coverage, Snakes has been spreading around the internets for months. That level of interest simply can’t be maintained.

This Google Trends chart has Chris all in a huff.

He has a good point, that social marketing can’t be sustained indefinitely, but I don’t think Rubel was really asserting that Snakes on a Plane was going to as successful as Pirates of the Caribbean. Rubel’s just saying that New Line facilitated the movies fanbase to do all the marketing for them speding next to nothing doing it whereas Disney spent millions plastering Captain Jack on drink cups, bill boards, and other vertical surfaces. If we trust the Goggle Trends chart as a good measure of interest, even accounting for the recent drop in interest, Soap still beats Pirates.

Like Chris says, the ultimate success of the film will depend on all sorts of other variables (like how good it is). However, the Google Trends chart doesn’t project success or even interest in the film. It just measures the level of “conversation” out there and in terms of that, generation of awareness; New Line has something to smile about it. I ultimately don’t think SoaP will do anything near what Pirates does but the take home point is that it is amazing what social marketing can do for a movie about snakes on a motherfucking plane.