Veoh is still up. For those of you who can't live without divx rips of Matthew Barney's cremaster series, you have a reprieve.
B On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Rupert Howe <rup...@twittervlog.tv> wrote: > It's not unlike TV, really. There are thousands of bad channels, a > lot of shitty formats, and a small amount of shows of real quality. > > In terms of availability of IPTV, and the development of web TV, it's > like TV was back in the mid 1940s. > > The money and infrastructure in TV allows the development of quality > drama and comedy, which is a really hard thing to achieve (even in cop > show & sitcom formats). > > In TV, huge systems are in place to support and promote good drama. > Periodically, TV drama production comes under attack from insecure > executives - and so drama shifts from channel to channel (HBO has had > a good decade for instance) but if you look at the machinery behind > even a mediocre soap, it's massive. Writers, script editors, > producers, commissioning editors, channel controllers, schedulers, > directors, performers, technicians, marketing departments. > > At some level, all these people - at the top of their professions - > are all giving input to find the best material and iron out the creases. > > I don't know how independent web producers are ever going to replicate > this level of infrastructure and support - I'm trying to figure that > out. But as much as some of us might feel squirmy about awards > ceremonies, I think the Streamys help a lot by pointing out the good > stuff. Otherwise, where do we look to find it? Meanwhile, the age > of widespread IPTV is speeding towards us. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv > > On 19 Feb 2010, at 21:09, Adam Quirk wrote: > >> You're awesome Rox. Thanks for persevering and doing what you love. >> >> You are a great example to point to when people start out in this >> medium, or any medium actually. Some people get into something like >> web video or blogging and make something for a couple months, then get >> frustrated when nobody is paying them $100k for their work. As 99% of >> newcomers drop off after a few weeks or months because of their >> unfulfilled feelings of entitlement, the people who are really >> passionate push on and keep doing what they love regardless of >> financial reward. >> >> <bitter> As to Sull's points, there's a much larger quantity of >> creators these days, I agree, but the percentage of good stuff to bad >> stuff has not increased with the level of technology. The signal to >> noise is obviously much worse than when there were 100 of us making >> stuff. And the quality has suffered due to an influx of Hollywood >> types trying to stuff Hollywood productions into a web video box. >> Which usually doesn't work because they are generally out of work in >> the first place because they weren't very good at their jobs in >> Hollywood, and even if they were, that doesn't translate very well on >> the web. That translation problem could soon be a thing of the past >> since everything will be funneled to our TVs in the coming years, but >> it still doesn't solve the problem of bad writing and acting. >> </bitter> >> >> Disclosure: I am a Streamys judge and IAWTV member. There is some damn >> good material out there. It's not easy to find. The technical arts are >> on par with the best TV and Hollywood. The writing/acting stuff needs >> a lot of work. >> >> -- >> >> Adam Quirk >> http://wreckandsalvage.com >> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Roxanne Darling <oke...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I am enjoying reading all these comments - though my head is like a >> > ping pong ball banging back and forth as I agree with virtually >> all of >> > the statements! >> > >> > Most of all though I have had a lifelong irritation with virtually >> > every industry I have worked in that values the stuff more than the >> > people. Conferences will pay for fancy programs and glitch and glam >> > yet want speakers to pay their own way. Businesses will spend >> $40,000 >> > on a one seat bathroom, and kvetch about a website that costs $5000 >> > (that is a real example from one of our earlier clients.) Velvet >> seats >> > for the theatre and fancy cocktail parties for the donors yet the >> > ballerinas make pennies. So that prob is nothing for us to feel >> > special about. :-) >> > >> > Our show is approaching it's 4th anniversary - we were "late" to the >> > party but there is still energy there I cannot define. At it's root, >> > people feel good when they watch it. For me, after 757 episodes, it >> > still has meaning, and we still have ideas, but it is much harder to >> > find the time. We've had almost no sponsorship or financial >> support in >> > the entire term. >> > >> > Anyway, I just posted the first thing in several weeks - it's a nice >> > oddball show that speaks to the videoblog sensibility not the hulu >> > one, that I hope might help you feel good too. >> > http://www.beachwalks.tv/2010/02/15/beach-walk-757-waves-washing-over-us/ >> > >> > Though I really do like watching 30Rock on hulu from the laptop >> while >> > cooking dinner! >> > >> > Love, >> > >> > Rox >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Michael Sullivan <sullele...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> i dont think their is much getting around the fact that making >> good money >> >> with web video 'shows' is extremely difficult and frustrating. >> >> in a sense, technology advancements have helped and hindered. >> accessible >> >> tech equates to enormous competition, redundancy and noise. >> imagine if >> >> rocketboom launched today instead of in 2005ish. >> >> >> >> this is not to say that good independently produced content is >> rare. its >> >> just a really hard business as far as i can tell and why i never >> took the >> >> business of web video seriously. i knew that a few video tech >> services >> >> would succeed (i.e youtube) while most would fail. >> >> and of course some shows would have some meaningful success while >> most >> >> others would fizzle or at least reformat with subsequent >> attempts. its easy >> >> to try out ideas and fail rapidly and reinvent etc etc. >> >> >> >> in many cases, success will come with the sacrifice of making >> video that you >> >> dont really want to make as a creative. way back when, i made >> some cash >> >> doing wedding videos and shit like that but hated it. >> >> but if i wanted to make any money at all with video making, i'd >> have to >> >> consider such work.... their are various needs for video footage >> these days >> >> as its basically like a commodity. so you can find work but its >> more taking >> >> video as opposed to making video. and i've never been very >> interested in >> >> that dilution. thats just me (when it comes to video). if i was >> able to >> >> take significant time off and had some decent money and trustful >> talented >> >> people to collaborate with, i would love to make a 'film'. but >> we all know >> >> how difficult that is too. >> >> >> >> their is always hope. but typically the best way to have fun >> making video >> >> is to keep it a hobby. >> >> that hobby can generate a portfolio for you that could land you >> some >> >> interesting work one day. >> >> or at least you have some stuff to show the grandkids.... to >> repeat what our >> >> recent ancestors also used video for. video time capsules. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Jay dedman >> <jay.ded...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > Do you think its safe to try discussing the creation aspect, >> now that >> >>> there are presumably less people participating here, and there >> is no longer >> >>> a danger of urinating on the newborn flames of vlog hope where >> everything >> >>> seemed possible because that time has long >passed? >> >>> >> >>> My friend, David, coincidentally wrote a relevant post today about >> >>> creators developing fans and finding alternative means of funding: >> >>> >> >>> http://el-oso.net/blog/archives/2010/02/11/the-creative-class-and-crowdfunding/ >> >>> It's not specific about video and riffs on the "1000 True Fans" >> >>> theory, but still interesting to see how things are evolving. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Jay >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> http://ryanishungry.com >> >>> http://momentshowing.net >> >>> http://twitter.com/jaydedman >> >>> 917 371 6790 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Roxanne Darling >> > "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian >> > 808-384-5554 >> > Video --> http://www.beachwalks.tv >> > Company -- > http://www.barefeetstudios.com >> > Twitter--> http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------ >> > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- _______________________________________________________ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
