Open Forum II Response: Internet is an Extra Hand in Filmmaking

While I wish I could spend my response getting revenge on Felipe for his anti-film rant, and disprove my growing image as an elitist snob dedicated to an archaic medium, looking down my nose at digital (apparently the People’s Medium), I won’t. There is enough film love out there that I feel confident to move on to actually answering the question.

In short, YES, I do think the internet is a viable medium for filmmakers. Essentially, I agree with Felipe’s arguments, and I’d like to add to them in order to form my opinion. So if you haven’t read his post, definitely do that first and then come back to this one. Because the buffering and quality barrier hasn’t yet been broken through, I think it is safe to say that it is not a replacement for seeing a film in the movie theater, watching tv, or watching a DVD (though it is an alternative).

That means the internet can’t be considered its own independent medium for watching or distributing film. The internet is a dependent (Hey! Dependent?! Just like us!) medium for watching and distributing film, and as such, it’s pretty damn effective. I have two examples of how it is.

I think I’ve mentioned Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog once before on StillDependent, and I think it’s a great example of the internet as a “viable medium for filmmakers.” True, I’m not coming at it from the angle of people who haven’t made themselves yet and are trying to get noticed. I’m coming at it from the angle of how professionals in the field are using it. Joss Whedon was already well known, with several television series and a feature film under his belt, and he decided that Dr. Horrible would be an internet-only piece of work (not quite anymore, since it’s on DVD, but still). Dr. Horrible got noticed online; it was an instant cult hit, even though production values were not that incredible, nor did it have a huge budget. Its budget and production values were appropriate to the concept that it would stream online to its audience.

And why did Whedon do this online thing instead of going for something bigger and better? Because Hollywood was in the middle of the Writer’s Strike. Nobody could make money writing while on the strike, and so that took Joss Whedon’s work (writing) away from him. But instead of disappearing for the length of the strike, he went to work in the no-man’s-land of artistic expression, where the Guild couldn’t follow to persecute him- the internet.

How did it help him? He kept himself in the game, kept putting his name and his work out there while everyone else was on time out, kept up on his writing, on his connections (with actors and other industry technicians), broadened his audience, and made money…those are just the benefits I can think of off the top of my head.

But Dr. Horrible’s success on the internet is not open to everyone. It’s open to people who already have a name outside of the internet. People knew what he was capable of from television, and followed him. He used the internet as a crutch during a difficult time.

My second example is more personal. While it may be useless to make money from the literal streaming of your films online, that does not mean that you cannot make money from having your films available online. I have found it extremely helpful to have my films on YouTube, and not because the cash flowed in the moment I hit “upload.” Having a YouTube channel is like having a copy of your demo reel ready to hand out to anyone you meet, at any time. You may want to be purist about your gorgeous 16mm film, but you won’t have that reel (or a projector) with you all the time to show people how immaculate it is.

Yes, I am saying this, and I am the resident film loyalist.

Another nice thing is that everyone knows that the quality of YouTube is crappy. They don’t go to see your work on YouTube to see how beautiful and flawless it looks, and they won’t be shocked when it isn’t. They watch your films online to see what you're capable of, what you can do, what your skills are. Having your films accessible puts you one step ahead from those who don’t, and it can end up getting you a job (like it did for me). So maybe your low-budget film streaming online isn’t making money by itself. The job that the low-budget film gets you, that is the money.

My point is, the internet should be used as a supplement to filmmaking outside of the internet. It is a help, a crutch, and an alternative. At this point, as Felipe argued, it can’t be the be-all and end-all, though that may come someday in the future. Right now, it’s there to add to what you already have.


…and long live celluloid.


This is a response to Open Forum II: "Is the internet a viable medium for filmmakers and film?" You can also voice your opinion, either by emailing mailbag@stilldependentfilms.com or by hitting up the comments.

Other Responses:  Jake, Mike