Filmmaking

3 Free Applications for Screenwriting

Alan — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:02:38 +0100

Celtx

The New Haven project uses Celtx for screenwriting. I was all set help out in some other areas of production, when I received a warning from the project-lead. Essentially, although Celtx allows for multi-user collaboration, it doesn't facilitate it at all. In fact, it gets in the way.

One person creates a project file, uploads for sharing within the project team. Another team member downloads the project. Both update the project. The last one to sync the project overwrites the work of the other. Bad move.

It's a shame. Celtx has a lot of potential. If it weren't for the multi-user issues, it would be ideal for independent movie-making. It includes tools for capturing scripts, characters, locations, settings as well as props, CGI, vehicles, etc. Most (I'd say all, but I haven't confirmed that) are cross-referenced. I like the ability to be able to add a character in one scene, use the same character in a few other scenes, then run a report showing all the scenes that the character appears in. That's useful.

Zhura

I noticed a reference to Zhura when looking at the Celtx forum about multi-user issues. The interface looks a bit simpler than Celtx's and it doesn't look to have the depth of functionality. On the plus side, it's reputed to have much better multi-user functionality. On the negative side, it's currently a web-only application. So you can't add to your script while you're off-line. The team behind it are testing off-line access.

Any others?

Plotbot is another free application. Not one I've used, but I'll give it a go at some point.

Updates

If I find any more information, I'll update this page. If Celtx adds multi-user access, then please let me know if I haven't already written about it. That'll be the key for me to get involved and use it more.

New Haven

Alan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:26:37 +0100

I've been on the look-out for a Sci-Fi movie series a to get involved with. I wanted a side-project and after coming across a few old books I read and a few movies, I decided on the Space Opera theme. Lots of scope for over-the-top thematic music, a bit of rock and some atmosphere.

New Haven

I picked the New Haven project (previously known as Ticonderoga) as it fitted everything I was looking for out of a side-project. This had to fit alongside the normal jobs and projects.

New Haven's a good project. They had a gap for a composer, partly because the full feature's a long way off. That means there's a lot of other work to be done. The concept is original with a fresh perspective on sci-fi in space. It has potentially similarities with other sci-fi series (it's based around the military in space - hmm sound familiar?). It's difficult not to make comparisons really.

Fortunately, there are easily enough differences to make it stand out.

Firstly it's set in our own system, secondly there's no FTL travel, thirdly no aliens. Those three features alone set it apart from almost every other space opera. Add in a few other differences and it's easily headed to sit apart from the rest of the sci-fi series crowd.

What else?

I'm still looking out for other projects. Currently New Haven isn't taking up that much time. There's a long gap before I need to compose music for the soundtrack.

End of Year Review - 1st year

Alan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:00:16 +0100

The Award Sounds website had its first birthday yesterday. One year old. Wow. I posted the first articles on 15th July 2007. They were mainly placeholders stating what I was going to place on the site.

Musical Creativity

And a year on, we're up to 43 articles on the Musical Creativity series, for ideas for overcoming composer's block/writer's block. That's a little less than the one a week that I'd intended, but not far off. I'm happy with that amount, especially as some of the articles have been more in-depth than just a blog article.

Fundamentals of Process Mapping

I also started the Fundamentals of Process Mapping ebook series to help me mentor analysts and users on consultancy projects. That series still needs a couple more articles to make it worthwhile. I've already got a few mostly-written. They're in the pipeline. I can see that growing although each article takes longer to write than any of the other articles on this site.

Photography

It's the articles on photography that have gathered the most interested. Thanks to those that have commented. This is an area that I don't get much time for, but when I do it's enjoyable. It's even better to hear from others about their experiences.

Side-Project

The Space Opera side project has captured my own imagination more than my past side-projects have. I'm not that sure what to do with it now. While I'm on consultancy assignment, it will remain a side-project. I'll continue to write music that I think is suitable and clean up previous ideas, getting them into a fit state for publication. Some of that music may remain ear-marked for the side-project, some I may release out through other channels.

Memory and Venn

Spinneyhead Presents released Memory in 2007. It was the first release from the team, I was involved as composer, but also offered advice on how to plan the production; some advice was taken, some not. Most importantly, what wasn't heeded was the advice on location audio (not something I've that much experience in, and I don't claim to, but I do follow basic audio engineering principles). The result was that the location audio was horrific and I spent more time editing in post than composing. I wrote up the lessons learned so others can learn from the team's experiences.

That may sound harsh, but it was a first release for a new team and there are two real positives came out of Memory.

The team delivered. It finished what it set out to do. Despite the quality of the footage and hard work involved, the team completed the project. There are enough teams that fail, lose their way or find the work is too difficult.
The team learned from the experience and the following (and unrelated) series Venn is so much better, it's hard to believe the same team is behind it.

Top 10 Space Opera Flaws

Alan — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:19:04 +0100

The vast majority of Space Operas have the same flaws. A moment's reflection and they seem obvious.

1. Lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time.

Although it could be considered colloquial hyperbole nowadays, like saying some car is lightyears ahead of another in its technology, would it still be colloquial in the same sense when there is a more basic need to space-faring humans for measuring distance in terms of lightyears?

2. Advanced technology is out of context

You can see some technologies that are lightyears ahead - see 1 above ;-) - of where we are nowadays (FTL drives), but others are barely a decade away (e.g. tv screens as part of a wall, upgraded electrical sockets, fluorescent strip lights). I'm surprised I don't see a normal 13A socket or whatever the US equivalent is for the North American series/Hollywood movies. At least the characters aren't dialling 555 in scifi movies when they need to speak to someone.

3. Historical context suits the plot, not reality

A character will introduce 20th Century music as rock'n'roll in one episode suggesting to the viewers that it's rare and largely unheard of in that century. Other characters in the same society talk about Hitler, Stalin or the politics of American Indians without explaining them to each other, suggesting to the viewer that knowledge of these historical people and their respective histories is common in that century. I find it difficult to understand a world that can remember one part but forget the other. Saying that if I think back through the histories of the 1600s, I can probably remember more about the historical events than I can the music. But the knowledge of the music isn't lost, few of us would be shocked to hear that Bach or Handel existed even if we can't name the music.

So which part of history has been forgotten or which part is taught less in the schools?

What made it even worse was that the series is set only a century away so how could they have forgotten rock'n'roll so quickly?

The saving grace for that series is that it's not alone in this using this warped concept. There are numerous other examples.

4. Time distorts

The time that it takes characters to travel from one place to another changes to suit the episode end or the length of a movie. A whole fight sequence can take 20 minutes of movie time, but only take 2 minutes of character time. It may take another set of characters two hours to get to their objective. But they arrive at the same time. How's that?

Watch the time it takes characters to travel between planets. That really does get distorted even after taking into account the time stated in the plots. This becomes worse in the scenarios where direct planet-to-planet travel isn't possible between solar systems and instead the ships have to pass at FTL speeds through gateways further out in the systems, then travel at slower-than-light speeds in the system.

Some of this could be put down to lack of continuity when reading through scripts, sometimes down to laziness but mainly I think it's so that the story fits better.

5. Non-caucasian Warrior

This is a delicate one to talk about. I guess the issue is down to stereo-typing at the casting stage and I can only applaud series like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica for bucking the trend somewhat, but unfortunately not far enough. That's a guess, it could well be that the author/scriptwriter wrote the character descriptions stating race.

There are two angles on this that bug me:

a) If the Earth is to have united under a single Government, wouldn't the race ratio for the people that were starbound be different to what we see on TV? Perhaps more Chinese, more Indian, to pick two obvious origins, than the typical western caucasian that we do see on our screens. I'd like to watch some non-Western and non-Japanese Space Operas to see if the same or reverse ratios apply.

b) Assuming we have to accommodate the lack of non-caucasian actors for some reason (why? I can guess it's down to the networks and production houses rather than the writers), then why do the non-caucasian male actors have the same roles across the different series? The male non-caucasian actor tends to be a warrior; think Lt Worf or Tyr Anasazi. To some extent even the character Ronon from Stargate: Atlantis. I admit it's not always the case, but the percentages do seem to bear it out.

6. Computer Displays

No imagination. Even the display sequence at the start of the Minority Report gives some insight into how the line between display and interface could be used in the relatively near future compared to the scale used in Space Operas. Even now, we're able to see some of that technology, witness Jeff Han's demonstration and the touch interfaces becoming more prevalent.

I can understand how displays were block graphics back in 60s tv series. The world of computers was new and the rate of advancement in the field wasn't as visible to the average member of the public (or at least to screenwriters and fx designers). However now that we've had 4 or 5 decades of living with computers, we should have a better idea of where the technologies are going. It seems wrong for a Space Opera to have more backward technology than we can find in current research papers.

I've been trying to avoid picking on any one movie or series so far, but in this case I'm going to break that rule. I have no idea why the screens flicker during the identity checks in Gattaca. Either the signal's there or it isn't. Flickering implies that the signal is only partially being received and is an analogue signal in the first place. Is the technology that bad in the future that displays flicker?

7. Childish/Idiotic Characters

Why bother? I think anything by Gene Roddenberry suffered from this, but he's not alone. Trance-Gemini in Andromeda annoyed me a lot and almost made me stop watching it. I'm glad the character was changed after the first series making for a more relaxed viewing experience.

Think of the outcry against Jar-Jar Binks. There are other examples (Dagobot) where the main cast is human and then there are one or two aliens or robots that would be more apt on childrens tv than in a serious Space Opera.

I think the scriptwriters in Farscape managed to avoid this flaw most of the time, ensuring that the alien characters were a full part of the plot with their own character development, despite having a few monomaniacal traits.

8. Infodumps/Expositions

Seems to be a major flaw in sci-fi writing in general of which very few authors, if any at all, have escaped it completely. The better authors manage to weave it into dialogue, the worst authors deftly weave it into dialogue with the agility of a wrecking ball against a concrete dam.

It is a challenge to do do properly and probably a bigger challenge for sci-fi than most. That means the writers have to step up their game. Some present a short intro, show someone reading a story, animate the pages of a book or show some history. All are forms of getting a lot of information about the world in which the series is set. I'd prefer to have a narrator (whether in type or spoken) than have bad infodumps in speech. It's why I'll always give a series a few episodes. In the first couple, the scriptwriters are trying to set the scene and just because they're no good at that, doesn't mean that the rest of the series will be bad although it does make me cringe. That does make it more awkward for feature-length films where you have to figure out how much time to spend informing the audience of the world.

So far there are a few series that I just haven't got past that stage despite there having been several seasons on release. I would've missed out on the better plots of Andromeda if I'd left after the first few episodes (those were very bad, but not because of infodumps).

9. Dirt

Why is Earth called Dirt? One Space Opera (or indeed any sci-fi tale) using the word Dirt is fine, but for other authors to use it is just plain non-originality. I'd say it's plagiarism, theft and/or copying, but it's so prevalent that would be difficult to prove. Sadly, it's become a trope. If future humans were going to forget the word, but still have enough knowledge of what the other senses of the name meant, then why isn't it called Soil, Peat, Ground or, my favourite, Humus. No, not Houmous (ah, the original planet of houmans, consisting of an oily garlic mush), but Humus.

We even have different senses for the word Earth, it can also be in an electrical context. Again, Ground could come in useful.

The use of Dirt is especially abundant in any of the series where the origin of mankind has been lost.

Beyond the multiple senses of the word Earth, isn't it more likely that the planetary government will have changed the name. How many countries now can keep a name for more than a few centuries without changing it? Add in a few annexations, formations of federations and falling empires, then there is a lot of potential for the name to change.

And what happened to Gaia?

10. Not enough thought to the culture and society

The great science fiction writers were (and are) great for a reason. When they created a world, they thought it through, specifically they thought through the implications of the technology on the society. The also thought through how society handled itself. For instance, in a cashless society, how does money-laundering occur? What are the benefits of stealing something if you can't sell it for cash?

Why?

For the side-project I'm setting up, I want to avoid a lot of the cliches and mistakes. Can't avoid them all or it may be a boring waste of time to watch, but I'd at least like to get some concepts straighter than they are in a lot of series. Some of these are tropes, some aren't (yet). I was part way through writing this and a few other articles when I came across tvtropes.org. A lot of work already exists there, all amateur (no offence) but very interesting.

Venn Episode 1 in the works

Alan — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:47:52 +0100

I've recently received the video for the 1st episode of Venn (the previous release was a pilot and called Episode 0)

Again the episode is by Spinneyhead Presents. Episode 1 picks up from that and plays on the theme of the celibacy bet. The content is better than Episode 0, the scripts are better and from my perspective, the audio is so much better. It's definitely better than the first series, Memory.

This is the first episode that I've been happy with sound-wise. The quality of the recording far surpasses anything that the team has done before. I've seen series on BBC3 that had worse audio than this.

So what's this mean for me?

I can write music to fit the scene, instead of covering up audio errors
I can write less music. Yes, that's a benefit to all concerned. Check out Memory where I had to write a lot of music
I don't have to spend days or weeks cleaning up the audio manually (automated tools get you so far, but some things have to be tweaked manually)
The speech is already clearer and more intelligible
It's already more professional
It's easier to watch
More enjoyable from a production perspective

The audio has been improved greatly by recording with an off-camera microphone. Ian used a hand-held boom and microphone to achieve much better audio than possible with the on-camera microphone.

I'll post back when Episode 1 is released.

43 Reasons for Collaborating - Part 1 - Musical Creativity 41

Alan — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:22:07 +0100

A short series of articles on collaborating with other people to make your music better, make it heard or to help them move their music forwards.

1. Recording

1a Engineer

It's so much easier to play, record, change settings, do another take and all those other tasks when there's an extra pair of hands doing the engineering. It means you can focus on feeling comfortable and ensuring that you play to the best of your ability without having to change position and move a microphone, listen to the output, try again, etc. The more you work with an engineer, the more familiar you'll become with their way of working.

1b New outlook

Work with other engineers will remove some of the familiarity of the recording process or familiarity with a particular engineer but will open up new ideas. If you're acting as the engineer for someone else, then it may force you to think back to basics and undo some of your own habits that work well for you in your setting, but no so well for others in their own setting.

1c New kit

Not only do engineers have their preferred choices of recording techniques and equipment, some will have that equipment to hand. It's at the beginning and aspiring levels that it can make more difference since it's at the amateur and semi-pro levels that you're still learning which combinations work best for you. Perhaps you work with an engineer to try out their mics and return the favour later by recording them using your kit. The reciprocal nature opens up new opportunities and learning experiences.

1d Location or studio

Just as the engineer may have kit and techniques, they may also have access to other locations and studios. Want a good drum room, then you're probably better off with a studio, but want a particular type of sound, maybe even just a decent vocal booth and you may have luck with other musicians and engineers.

1e Crowd and audience

If you're thinking of recording a live gig, then the engineer may have access to a different audience (maybe bigger) than you're used to. Lots of live-recording engineers will have regular gigs. Getting a slot in one of those, could provide a ready-made, if not totally accepting, audience.

2. Mixing

2a Remix

Letting someone else mix your tracks has a few of advantages

provides a fresh pair of ears to your music
means you can focus on recording and playing
brings a different tone to your music if you use a mix engineer who has their own sound

Sometimes the mix you have just doesn't work, giving it to a mix engineer may help you out of that rut.

2b Revamp

Think of this being the use of "remix" that's becoming more prevalent nowadays. Hardly mixing in the traditional sense of setting faders, processing and effects, but getting involved in cutting-and-pasting the arrangement. In this case, the re-mixer would be chopping verses up, perhaps interspersing them with samples from elsewhere. Is there a better word for this?

2c Mashups

Taking the revamp approach a step further for a more extreme result.

2d Different mixing skills

There are a few tricks to mixing for 12 inch vinyl. Although many of these may be properly found within the mastering engineer's remit, knowing about them from a mix engineer's perspective will help move things along more quickly.

3. Playing

3a Skill

There are times when you have to admit you can't play an instrument well enough to be able to record what you want to. This is where the session musicians come in. At the more amateur level, it's more about finding a friend or a contact who can do it for you. Just beware of contractual implications if you go that route.

3b Extra Instruments

An extension of 3a, sometimes you just want a different instrument in your recording; one that you can't play. The most common for these would be real violins or cellos to augment sampled strings, or real trumpets or horns to augment brass sections. While you can get friends to fill in, again beware of contractual implications.

3c Vibe and Groove

Different players have different styles of playing. Compare the rock bassist to the jazz/funk bassist. Different styles and often even a different sense of timing. Actually, that should probably read that they can have a different interpretation of timing. By bringing in a musician who can add a different vibe, you can dramatically change the feel of a song.

3d Name and Kudos

This is the guest slot. Having someone with a known name can introduce you to their audience, but also give you the reputation of being able to work with others.

3e Broaden your Horizons

Playing or working with other musicians is a great way to expand your own horizons. Watch what they do, how they set-up, how they approach the gig, what kit they use and how they use it to produce the sounds requested of them. And that's without learning from the notes they play or the phrasing they employ.

Other Pages

Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

Part of a series by Award Sounds offering a selection of creative ideas to kick-start or rejuvenate a composition.

Progress Update

Alan — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:23:38 +0100

Wow, I knew I've been busy on other tasks for a week or so, but I hadn't realised it had been over 4 weeks since my last post. That's the first time I've had a gap of this size since I started out with this site.

Screening

One of the projects I'm involved in had a screening of its pilot episode in the main cinema complex in Manchester last week. Unlike other projects where I'd had more control of the timing and placement of audio, this was a project where I had only provided musical intro, outro, stings and a few themes, and some of that was in collaboration with another musician. I was interested to see how the director had chosen to place the music in the episode, how it had been mixed (e.g. forward or placed back in the mix) and I was also interested in watching the episode. Up until that point, I hadn't seen the episode.

Business Change, Process Mapping and BPR

I'm working on a long-term transformation project at the moment. As I'm doing so, I'm keeping an eye out for the common pitfalls of process mapping. I don't think there's much I want to change in the process-mapping series, what I've already written is still valid. There are a few points that I think could make it easier to understand. Plus I want to continue the series, it's only a few articles long so far and there's so much more to write. One of the main points I'll discuss is the time it takes to do full As-Is and To-Be models and how other tools and processes such as those found in Lean can be more beneficial, depending on the context.

This is actually the reason why there hasn't been much other activity on this site. The demands of a full-time client plus travel there and back is leaving little time for the updating. It does however leave me with time to write, just not time to research and upload the texts.

So what now?

The good side is that I've been writing some articles off-line for the musical creativity series. I'll publish those soon. Some will take longer than others as it will take time to prepare samples.

Status of the Musical Instrument Retail Industry

I've been watching the failure of Sound Control/Turnkey/Soho Soundhouse with interest. Over the last few years, I'd only buy from one or two named individuals in that chain to the point that I'd drive past 2 of my local shops and purchase from the shop in another city a couple of hours away for better service. Add to that the fact that the sales stock was getting progressively more budget-based for the items I'd want to buy meant that I was looking around for a better store.

New Kit

The failure of Sound Control comes at an odd time. I am looking for a new hardware compressor to complement what I already use. Sound Control didn't really sell much pro outboard beyond the SSL range, so I was already wondering how to broach this with them or to branch off to other companies such as KMR.

Indie Filmmaking

venn is still progressing. Shooting was completed a couple of weeks ago for a few scenes. Means I should have some rough edits to write to soon.

Space Opera

I've also watched a few independent sci-fi projects collapse over the last month or so. One or two appear to have collapsed outright, others have been delayed as the respective teams understand more about what's involved

Stuffed

My own short-movie project, Stuffed, is on hold while I think about what background I want. When I started out with Stuffed, I wasn't thinking about the background. That's not an oversight, just that I hadn't noticed the opportunity. One day I was looking at the footage and the idea hit me. I've had a few short attempts using Public Domain footage from archive.org but that hasn't proved sufficient quality. I'm not on the look-out for a good background which will convert well to PAL-I resolution - this isn't a HD project. I'd like to get it finished soon.

Production Company Structure Options - Page 2

Alan — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:12:49 +0100

In Page 1, I introduced a few organisations structure and my thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Preference

My current preference is for something like Option 4. I don't actually care whether a person is a "professional" in the field or not, after all a professional is just someone who earns money from their chosen activity. There are enough professionals in the world that give the rest of them a bad name, especially as technologies becomes easier to use. Look at the plethora of wedding videographers backing in the early 90s. There were a lot of bad wedding videos then.

I'm happy to accept that people are happy to get involved whatever their professional status. Just because they're pro, doesn't mean they'll get a bigger share.

Other issues

a) How much is loaned kit worth?

If I'm the director, composer, producer, sound designer, then I'd expect the shares associated with those roles. More problematic is that if I can bring in a camera, microphones, etc should they be worth a share as well? If I didn't provide them, the production company would have to so they're not losing out. Same questions apply to the animator who uses their own workstation and software, the actor who obtains appropriate costume and props.

If this were a contracted-out world, then you'd contract the role and expect them to provide their own equipment. Only works so far, until you find the contractor uses different software or a different format to the rest of the production house.

I think there's an idea there, if it's to be given a share, then it's got to be worth something, e.g. over £500. That would stop people at the other extreme saying that the pen and paper they're supplying should count. Again more complicated than at first glance.

If it's based on Option 8 above, then maybe there's a case for percentage points for loaned kit.

I'm against procedures going to this level of detail for a start-up based on people volunteering, so I tempted to say it's the people that count, not the equipment. I like nice, clear and simple rules that everyone can adhere to. So no shares for loaned kit. May have to change that if a sponsor donates kit, but that's another story.

b) How good is good enough?

This is an issue for every production house but has some quirks when people have less expectation of being paid. In my case, I've stated the level of quality I'm looking for. If it's my own production, then in the first instance, I'll be the judge and either accept or reject the products. The counter-side here is that if I reject, then I won't use the product unless it's resubmitted for approval.

This will probably result in a few upset submitters. But that's a fact of life. My view is that it's better to hear constructive criticism now than live in the belief that everything's acceptable.

As the production company grows in size, I'll probably expand the number of reviewers. Think of how many of the micro stock photography sites work at the moment with numerous reviewers. In the end though, it'll mainly be down to the director to review and pass judgement on quality.

If I'm signing up to someone else's production, then I'll only look for projects that look like they'll be of good enough quality. They also have the right to confuse me.

c) Licensing

I've mentioned something similar before. If you submit and we accept, then the submitter agrees to the appropriate licence whether they back out later or not.

d) How much is talent worth?

Same as no talent in my opinion. This is where I would differ from a professional production company. I'm aware there's a difference, but I choose not to recognise it. What I'm interested in is what the person delivers to the project. If that is of sufficient quality, then that's good enough.

e) How much is each role worth?

Is an actor worth more than a cameraman? I don't know where to start here. One part of me says start with everyone equal. Another says focus on the time that people. I may base the percentages on a typical Hollywood breakdown.

f) How long should it take?

Think about an experienced pro creating a product in 2 hours. It may take a less experienced person 5 hours to achieve and the quality may not quite be there. So when members say that they've spent 3 hours on a product, should you take into account how efficient they are. Now that's a minefield. Imagine telling someone who's spent a week on something that you'll only give them a share based on 1 day. This issue smacks of bureaucracy to me. I'm very keen to avoid this one. I'm curious if you've any tales about this issues arising.

Why bother?

I know that a lot of what I'm writing may seem overly formal. I've had a bit of time where I've had nothing else to do other than write or read (no internet connection either) so I decided to write down my thoughts about setting up the production company so I can complete the Space Opera project that I want to.

Whatever the organisation format, I fully believe in being upfront, honest and clear. It may mean reading a bit more, but there's fewer chances of arguments later. I don't want people getting involved in the project only to take offence at a later decision.

Production Company structure options - Page 1

Alan — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:06:44 +0100

I mentioned some ideas about setting up a production company in order to complete the Side Project that I want to do.

In this article, I'll expand on those ideas and document a few issues that will have to be handled at some point in the organisation's lifetime.

Background

For a start, I don't intend to set up a traditional production company that has access to typical funding, equipment, etc. Instead it will be largely based on people being involved on a voluntary basis and rewarding involvement if the money's there to do so. Unfortunately this is as far as many get. Read around on a variety of creative sites and you'll see a number of projects that either remain a pipedream, are based on dodgy foundations (e.g. one person could scupper the organisation) or revert back to one person, perhaps involving a couple of close friends.

I want to move beyond that. It works in other industry sectors so it should be able to work in this sector with some modification.

The main issue I see again and again relates to how much time people put in and what they expect to get out of it. In the back of my mind, I'm always curious about the legal structure and implicit contracts between the people that are involved.

Here are some options:

Option 1) Everybody receives a share of the profits

Once a group figure out they need a structure other than working as friends, this seems to be the logical first step. It's a common set-up, but relies a lot on trust and assumptions. It has some issues with investment within the organisation and from without. A lot of people may sign-up to what looks to be a good organisation (and still may be a good organisation) only to find that the profits don't materialise despite some people making money out of it.

Benefits:

Fair
Looks good on paper
If the movie or series of movies don't make a profit, then neither do those involved, so no expectation of payout
Should help motivate members into pushing distribution
Can apportion the share according to the effort/talent involved

Concerns:

Accounting can find ways so that the movie never makes a profit.
What happens when the production company makes more than one movie, how to allocate funds, accrue debt accordingly?
The first production will get hit with a lot of the cost (e.g. buying cameras, editing suites, etc), so profits will be a long way off
How to accommodate external investment

Option 2) Some roles are salaried, everybody receives a share of the profits

A step up from option 1, this usually entails the main people who drive the project forwards recouping a small salary or fixed payments out of the organisation before profits are calculated. Again, it appears to be a logical step forwards, ensuring that those that put most in receive an fixed payment for their efforts. If the organisation returns a profit, then I guess it works. Do you have an example of this structure working successfully?

Benefits:

Fair for the people who are putting a lot of time in
Looks good on paper
Means that the salaried members are protected from the lack of effort/talent by the non-salaried members
Should help motivate members into pushing distribution
Offers an incentive for non-salaried to find salaried positions
Can apportion the share according to the effort/talent involved
Creates continuity in the organisation

Concerns:

Creates a divide between the salaried and non-salaried
The non-salaried may give up earlier
Accounting can find ways so that the movie never makes a profit.
If the project doesn't make a profit, then the non-salaried members are working to pay the salaries of the salaried members
What happens when the production company makes more than one movie, how to allocate funds, accrue debt accordingly?
The first production will get hit with a lot of the cost, so profits are a long way off

Option 3) Everybody receives a share of the revenue

By saying that the share is out of revenue, it reduces the risk of the production company accounting classing the project as a loss and the members receiving nothing. It means that anybody who contributes receives a share. It still may be a small amount, especially for the projects being funded by add-on advertising. It may be good to provide small shares with this model so members get paid, but get paid less (for the advantage of getting paid earlier).

Benefits:

Even if the movie makes a loss, members will get paid
Earlier payout for members
Better motivation for members

Concerns:

Production company will quickly end up in debt paying out from revenue without recouping costs
Less money for the production company to reinvest in future projects
Members do the minimum to get their share and no more (isn't that a potential risk in any structure though?)
How can the organisation afford to purchase kit?

Option 4) Split the revenue into 50% going to costs, 50% to share

A variation on option 3 where the production company has a better control over what comes in and what goes out. The 50% figure is arbitrary for this, but initially seems a good place to start. Your experience may suggest a different figure. This mitigates some of the risk that the company has in paying out from revenue (e.g. also having to pay tax, costs, debts).

Benefits:

Even if the movie makes a loss, members will receive some payment
Earlier payout for members
Better motivation
Production company receives revenue to pay off costs

Concerns:

Production company may still end up in debt paying out from revenue without recouping costs, but is less likely
Members do the minimum to get their share and no more (isn't that a potential risk in any structure though?)

Option 5) Everyone salaried or contracted

Perhaps the most typical professional setup where the production company cover the costs of hiring staff or contractors to do the jobs.

Benefits:

Control over professionalism and quality of products due to contractual nature
Very early payouts for staff/contractors, regardless of project's profit
Clearer ownership and copyright position
Greater potential for profit for the production company

Concerns:

Way beyond the reaches of startup companies due to the funding required
Payouts for members may be less than a percentage share if the production becomes a success
Less feeling of membership

Option 6) Everyone salaried or contracted, 3rd party funding

Benefits:

Control over professionalism and quality of products
Very early payouts for staff/contractors
Continuity of payments due to 3rd party

Concerns:

Way beyond the reaches of startup companies due to the funding required
Potential lack of control as the 3rd party encroaches on decisions (in case of investors)
Less feeling of membership
Direction set by 3rd party fund directors (in case of investors)
Someone has to be responsible for pay back the funds (in case of loans)

Option 7) Full co-operative

I really don't know much about formal co-operatives. I'll have to have a look into this more. I'll post updates to this as I find out more.

Option 8) Purchase

An option is that everyone has to become a partner where they invest an amount to become a partner. Provides the organisation with capital to purchase equipment and service. However, it's probably a bad idea to set-up a true partnership due to the equal liabilities involved unless you know the other partners very well. Look elsewhere for advice for benefits and pitfalls of legal partnerships.

I can see some benefits to members having to invest. Let's say that each member had to invest a few hundred pounds. That'd mean that you should only get people who are more committed, believe it will work and the organisation would have some initial capital. If it doesn't return a profit, it makes it more awkward and how do people leave the organisation, etc.

A better idea may be that a person buys the equipment, e.g. a microphone, a camera. They retain ownership of that equipment and can take it with them when they leave, no matter what it is. By default they probably become the operator of that equipment as well, although there may be a good case for others using it (depends on how well people get on).

Benefits:

provides well-needed equipment to the project
flexibility
new kit provides stimulation for new ideas

Concerns:

Avoids pitfalls of joining and complex leaving
If a person leaves and takes a necessary piece of kit with them, then it will need to be replaced
Can't really do this with services
need to understand who maintains the equipment (the person or the organisation)
different current and future values of kit: electronic equipment/software will be worth less in 3 years than a camera lens
organisation will still probably require capital
if the owner is no good at operating the equipment, who's going to tell them and what's the solution?

Continue to Page 2

Creating the outline of a Space Opera

Alan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:21:31 +0100

Science-fiction is heavily laden with context rather than plot. Those series that feature good plot and good, well-thought out character stand out from the crowd, even when the cinematography and set are not up-to professional standards.

I like the idea of something that stands out. Think BSG (either actually, but more the reimagined series), Lexx, Firefly, Red Dwarf.

Rather than coming up with a central concept, I'm thinking of approaching it from the top down instead. So for this series, I'm going to write the rules first and then see what the series or the movie could look like. I don't want to choose opposites for all the stock characters, plot devices, etc. Lexx already mixed a lot of those up, providing the viewers with 4 different major characters:

a cowardly anti-hero
a dead assassin
a sex-slave who's now half-lizard
a robot head infatuated with the sex-slave

The Rules

Here are some of the rules that I've been thinking about setting up for a series:

1) Plot Immunity

Characters will have plot immunity for a maximum of one series. This can be renewed per series, but viewers should not expect a character to last throughout. This fits with actors committing for a series and also allows for actors to break-off after a series for other commitments.

2) No time-travel

I don't want any time-travel plots. They reek of lack of creativity. I'll listen if anybody comes up with a great script involving time-travel but the odds are stacked against me accepting it in the first series. I'd prefer the focus of writers to be on other plots.

3) Multi-planet Galaxy

The series will involve travel between planets under a variety of governments and alliances.

4) FTL

Faster than light travel will exist. Ok, perhaps it isn't hard sci-fi but for a first sci-fi series that doesn't really bother me too much.

5) No Aliens

There will be alien life-forms, but no aliens. Where do I draw the line? Well, I expect plants and small animals to exist on other planets. I just don't want any dodgy alien characters or humans with knobbly heads.

6) No Reset Button

Characters may end up better or worse than they were at the end of an episode. They may affect their environment detrimentally.

7) Sequence

If it's a movie, then I like the idea of the Sequence Writing. It allows for short episodes to have their own internal structure and also fit into a full feature-length movie.

8) Narrator

I like the idea of a narrator, even one that's involved in the on-screen action as well as sitting outside of it. The closest I can think of is Che in Evita. This concept would require some more thought but I am attracted by the idea.

9) Non-US-centric

A lot of the series out there are based too much on the US. That's understandable when you think where the bulk of the series are made. Maybe I've seen too much Space: Above and Beyond recently :-)

10) Plot Generator

I'm undecided on this. It does make for easier script writing in the longer term. It would have to be more original than what's currently around. Space Opera in itself is a plot generator including different planets and technologies.

a) Some ideas for a plot generator that fit the bill:

Bounty hunter - been done as major character in Space Hunter and episode characters in Firefly, BSG, Star Wars. I didn't think it was done well enough in Space Hunter so there's still opportunity there.
Trader - been done as major character in Star Wars, Firefly/Serenity
Smuggler - been done as major character in Star Wars, Firefly/Serenity
Soldier - been done in Space: Above and Beyond, Star Wars, BSG
Detective - Dr Who
Mercenary - in lots of books Janissaries or Hammers Slammers
Thief

Those are all a bit macho and male-oriented. Even if the character is played by a woman, the role would probably appeals to male viewers. They also allows for lots of action in each episode.

b) Service Sector

Maybe we should look more at the service sector for a different role, after all many of those roles should still exist in the future. These would be less likely to act as a plot generator though.

Teacher
Nurse
Therapist
Civil Servant
Facilitator/Mediator - just writing what I know about, no ego.
Trouble Shooter
Priest
Scientist
Professor

c) Other roles

And again there are other jobs and roles in the world

Janitor
Traffic Warden
Dinner lady (is there a PC term for this?)
Security Guard (done in Lexx albeit being a cowardly security guard)

11) No Faith

I'm not interested in getting involved in the concept of faith. That doesn't mean that religion won't exist in the series nor will the series deny existence of any gods. But in as much the same way as Friends or Neighbours aren't spiritual, there's no reason this series will be either.

12) Space Warfare doesn't need to be Naval

I like the carrier concept in BSG and a few other series but space warfare doesn't have to be based on naval warfare. It could be made more interesting if there was a limit to the size of spaceship so that carriers couldn't exist. Alternatively the series could focus on the smaller scale of warfare (think the ground units in Hammers Slammers). Or better still, not focus on war at all.

13) Space Opera Noir

I like the distinction of Space Opera Noir. It's a new one on me. I like the idea that you don't have to have heroes who are god through and through or evil villains who are thoroughly evil. People are human complete with their failings.

Plot Resources

Some other resources for developing plots (I've ignored the multitude of sci-fi plot generators)

Ansible's always a good place to look at for what not to do.

Raygun Revival

Basic plots in literature

Information for formatting screenplays.

Or a comparison for Hard Sci-fi, there's Orion's Arm Universe Project