Amy answered a question I asked about where the revenue comes from for this project, as I understood her answer, it was privately funded, which to me means, they were out of pocket, but hopeful that someone would sponsor? Is that right?

I sent hte link to my daughter, she’s got a short film that she’s having trouble getting past the gatekeepers, (I never thought of it in those terms before, it’s perfect)

and it’s all so arbitrary and subjective, it has to be I suppose. And she’s finding that people are so politically correct now that they are committing over and over again to the same themes, cystic fibrosis and failing fish populations and global warming etc…

I don’t know what she’ll make of it, or how it works when you mount something online, it seems so ephemeral somehow. That’s the danger I see.

Deirdre, the creators of “quarterlife” both have a lot of credits to their names (they’ve produced a couple of really successful tv shows and recently produced the film “Blood Diamond”), and I think they also have other projects at the moment. I’m guessing this is their independent venture into the online world and that they will see about funding later on. I could be guessing wrong, but that seems to make sense to me.

The other series I’ve been following, “Sanctuary”, actually charges a few dollars for people to download the “webisodes” to create revenue. From memory it’s only like $3 a webisode, so I’d say a lot of funding comes from other places for that show too.

Mlewys, in regards to what can be done now, I think we’re all about to find out. Even big companies are taking an interest. The Sci Fi channel has announced that it is in the process of developing webisodes for Battlestar Galactica and the previously cancelled tv show Farscape. So it looks like the internet’s going to be common ground for independent and corporation-type ventures.

I’ve written a feature article about the whole thing, for university, but I’m hoping to get it published. But I did a LOT of research for it, and had already taken an interest before I decided to write about it.

I agree about legal issues. We’ll have to see what happens there. There are video sites which seem to be up and running despite potential copyright breaches. I think people will have to become more legally savvy personally. The internet’s a playground for copyright breaches and defamation.

In regards to Sanctuary, I’m not sure of the exact numbers but the forum (where you can discuss it) has over 10,000 members. And there was about 8 webisodes. So I’m guessing that’s a bit of money…and that was just the pilot for the series.

On quality, I agree it varies (probably the most online). I once heard a quote about the internet that I can’t remember, but the sentiment was that using the internet is like going through rubbish for something valuable. I don’t think it’s that bad, but I understand the feeling.

Hopefully there will be more online shows like quarterlife soon enough. I’d certainly like to see them (heh, The Bicyclist, dearie me!).

I hope it doesn’t come back around to money like that Deirdre. I like to think that there will always be the interactive side to the internet, because there are forums and blogs and things like that. Hopefully because of these things it will stay good on some level, regulated by critique in some way. Because if a website does wrong by visitors, there are so many ways people can deter others.

I’d love to read a sample of your work Philip, is there anything you can point us to or post?

I know what you mean about control freak, when I was working with a dramaturge for a production and she kept pushing it in directions that I didn’t want it to go, I said to her - you know in the end this thing will go out with my name on it and she replied, well it has my name on it too. But when the reviewer critiqued harshly it in the national paper, i never saw her name mentioned, not once.
I agree, for better or worse, I want it to represent my voice, not someone else’s.

Even though I publish a small minizine, there is an appeal to have that validation of having someone else publish my work. I still send short stories out in hopes.

I second the motion on possibly seeing some of Philip’s work.

I have read discussions about how a lot of people said that TV would replace radio and / or cinema. I think this also applies to the web and new media.

IMHO, the gatekeepers will still be there. Yes, maybe they will identify great content and the door will open a little bit, but I believe they’re very, very different media.

The web is more short-film oriented and you kinda forgive the amateurish style. TV usually aims to 30 or 60 min. shows and its structure is to keep you glued to the tube up to the last minute so you’ll be able to watch the ads.

Also, I have seen a lot of really, really terrible content on the web. Very amateur productions that are involuntarily funny. But I wouldn’t watch them on a regular basis.

Valid points - but I’m thinking of a time not far away now where the web and the tv will be indistinguishable, coming out of the same box. When that’s the case I believe the acceptable viewing time will lengthen.

There will be an awful lot of home made rubbish, but then, lets be frank, there’s a lot of rubbish on TV at the moment - you still find the good stuff. Word of mouth and review sites will become even more important than the massive publicity machines of the big studios, which can only be a good thing.

For example, I was at the switching on of the Christmas lights in Oxford St in London a few years back, and the whole thing was dominated (in a very sad way) by the publicity for the new Ice Age movie - which wasn’t due to come out until the next Easter! What has that got to do with movie making? It’s just about money making. (It also turned the Christmas experience into a very hollow one!) And of course Pirates of the Caribbean 3 made more money than anything - yet, well, the movie wasn’t up to scratch. To put it politely.

Of course, the guy falling downstairs will always get more views, but that’s not to say it will kill drama off. I still believe listening to stories is a primal human need. And what’s more, you can do both. I happily sat through 35+ hours of The Wire this last summer, and still managed to cram in my fair share of Youtube random shorts.

Anything that gets some of the massive money out of the production cycle, strips away the idea that we have to have massive production values, (aka SFX, explosions and mindless spectacle) and returns the emphasis to creativity and simple storytelling can only be a good thing for the form in my book.

Just to clarify - I too value good entertainment. I would put happily Aliens 2 and the first Die Hard movie in my all time top ten.

And of course they wouldn’t be cheap to make.

I’m talking about the way empty spectacle coupled with a bloated marketing push is obliterating the need for good story telling.

My hope is that, as they won’t have the big budgets, home grown internet projects will be thrown back on cheaper ways to hold an audience - truthful storytelling, in whatever form it takes, from Shaun of the Dead (which I loved incidentally) to something like Kes.

I think I understand what you’re saying, Philip. I still say movies like CLERKS should see the light of mainstream day more often than they do. I knkow there’s very talented people out there; it’s finding them that’s hard, but not as hard as it used to be before the internet.

Dear Ben,

Unless Time Square heats up forty degrees for New Year’s Eve at least (I would probably want fifty more than the typical), there is no way in hell you’re getting me to leave my palm trees, warm skies and beautiful ocean.

You’re all welcome down here. Not nearly as crowded plus we have rum.