A VC« Are You Bored? | Main | Positively 10th Street »
How To Be A Filmaker Circa 2006
I know I am late to this story, but that doesn't mean it's not worth telling.
There's a young woman named Lisa Nova (her handle not her real name) who wants to be a filmmaker. So what does she do? She doesn't worry about the established hollywood system, she just starts making fims and putting them up on YouTube. And she's good. And she's got an audience.
This video, called LisaNova Takes The Bus, has had over 85,000 views to date.
I found her on Chartreuse, where I saw this video, called Lisa Nova On Competition, which cracked me up, particularly the last part.
Then I watched every one of her videos, which you can find on her YouTube page (she needs a blog of her own). And then I googled her and found this interview with her in TheBloggingTimes.
She's made five videos, all shorts, and she's the "superstar of YouTube" and she's getting inquiries from TV and film companies.
That tells you all you need to know. If you are talented and want to get somewhere quickly, bypass the system, go right to the audience, and do your stuff. That's how to be a filmmaker circa 2006.
Well done Lisa Nova.
Comments (7) | Posted July 15, 2006 in Venture Capital and Technology
Comments
Here's another example: http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2006/06/27/the_self_made_star/
Posted by: Rick Burnes | Jul 15, 2006 7:49:52 AM
Well she's easy on the eyes which always helps. But what's so special about the bus trip?
Seemed rather dull.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 15, 2006 9:22:37 AM
I think they were great videos. Its all about doing the work and putting it out there. I'm glad she's doing the work..
Posted by: Eddie Dickey | Jul 15, 2006 11:54:46 AM
I noticed an interview with Simon Fuller (Spice Girls svengali and creator of the "Idol" franchise) in this month's Blender magazine. He talks about originally envisioning "Idol" as an on-line world, where wannabes would upload clips demonstrating their 'talent' - for him, naturally, to pick the best and turn them into money-making megastars, creating an easy way to success in a hitherto hard-to-break music world. But that was back in the late 90s when, as he says, the internet was a bit clunky. Fast forward 6 years... to MySpace, to YouTube, and waiting for the next Steven Meisel to appear from Flickr. Fred, you altered us to Marc Cuban’s post yesterday: "I can say without any doubt in my mind that if Overture had popularized Cost Per Click a few years earlier and costs for computing equipment were in 2000 what they are today, the hot sites of today would have been the hot sites of 2000". True. But you can either sound tired and be cynical about it, or embrace and exploit it. It is what it is, today. Go Lisa!
Posted by: tobias | Jul 15, 2006 12:13:19 PM
Fred,
One important thing to note about our shift to a long tail world is that it doesn't necessarily change the demand side of the supply and demand equation that much.
I am a huge fan of the user-generated content and perhaps more importantly, the user-centric filtering revolutions. Rather than rely on corrupt systems like network television, Hollywood studios, newspapers or the music industry to link creators and consumers of content, we now have the technology to being them together directly.
This breaks down many silly and unfair barriers, such as the requirement to move to Los Angeles or New York to be discovered in the entertainment industry. The American distrust of this sort of elitism can be seen by the wild success of American Idol, where anyone can succeed or fail on their own merits, rather than their "connections."
But let's not overstate the case here.
There are fundamental limits to the amount of filmed entertainment that can be demanded, such as the total population of the market and the average waking hours of those individuals. At most, I can only consume about 16 hours of media per day (and with Americans watching TV 7 hours per day, there isn't much upside).
In the long run, artists can only be paid the amount of money that their patrons and customers spend.
It's unclear to me that there are any vast increases to this pot in the offing. If I'm right, then one of two things will happen:
1) The number of "stars" will stay constant, but our means for discovering them will shift from centralized and autocratic to decentralized and democratic.
2) The number of "stars" will dramatically increase, but the average economic benefits of being a star will nosedive as the pot is split between a much larger number of players.
The same holds true of Web 2.0--anyone can start a company, but doesn't that just mean more people splitting the same pot at the end of the rainbow?
This is not to say that what's happening isn't real, or isn't important. It's just that "anyone can be a star" doesn't mean that it's easier to become a star, or that being a star will be as profitable as it was in the past.
Posted by: Chris Yeh | Jul 15, 2006 12:32:19 PM
Chris Yeh has rather stolen my thunder here, so I will just post the crucial question. What happens when Youtube for example is filled with every aspirant filmaker's work - how will the cream rise to the top?
It will be like years ago when I interned at a small record company which was frankly overwhelmed by the 100s of demos per week. LisaNova has broken through this month but would she do so on Youtube two years hence? Nor will I be having dinner with Kevin Bacon anytime soon depsite the mitigating circumstances I explain on my blog.
Posted by: John Dodds | Jul 15, 2006 4:11:43 PM
Sorry John! You can have first dibs next time.
Posted by: Chris Yeh | Jul 15, 2006 4:46:18 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
