<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ideas on the future of film distribution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.red40entertainment.com/ideas-on-the-future-of-film-distribution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.red40entertainment.com/ideas-on-the-future-of-film-distribution/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:08:36 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy</title>
		<link>http://www.red40entertainment.com/ideas-on-the-future-of-film-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-254</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:08:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.red40entertainment.com/?p=96#comment-254</guid>
		<description>Well, yes and no. As far as “which is better at long form narrative,” I don’t think it’s a film vs. TV question, since there’s little difference in the content. You take all the episodes of Lost, string them together without commercials and you have a really long movie. Conversely, The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars films could be broken up into episodes and shown on TV a week at a time. 

The difference is in the delivery—and which delivery mechanism appeals to which audience. Bringing it into the home has allowed films to reach TV series-type length—Lord of the Rings Extended Editions? Now you don’t HAVE to watch it all in one sitting. Yet psychologically, because it’s categorized under “film,” I don’t know a single person who would sit down to watch, say, The Deer Hunter, without expecting to finish it up two and a half hours later. Because it’s not artificially divided into “episodes,” we’re programmed to watch it all the way through, like we do at the local cinema. 

You make a good point that people are embracing storytelling by chapters more than ever before. Taking advantage of that: Perhaps by mimicking the format model of a TV show, and focusing on TV/cable/internet/etc as the distribution medium, independent filmmakers would find their audiences would accept more and take more risks because the time/cost investment is so low. It’s obviously more fruitful than trying to “get into Sundance” or drag crowds out to huge screenings.

I think this is what Lucas is getting at. He’s not “getting out of the film business,” as some headlines have proclaimed. He’s just changing his distribution medium. It wouldn’t have been possible decades ago, but audiences today have developed a taste for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, yes and no. As far as “which is better at long form narrative,” I don’t think it’s a film vs. TV question, since there’s little difference in the content. You take all the episodes of Lost, string them together without commercials and you have a really long movie. Conversely, The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars films could be broken up into episodes and shown on TV a week at a time. </p>
<p>The difference is in the delivery—and which delivery mechanism appeals to which audience. Bringing it into the home has allowed films to reach TV series-type length—Lord of the Rings Extended Editions? Now you don’t HAVE to watch it all in one sitting. Yet psychologically, because it’s categorized under “film,” I don’t know a single person who would sit down to watch, say, The Deer Hunter, without expecting to finish it up two and a half hours later. Because it’s not artificially divided into “episodes,” we’re programmed to watch it all the way through, like we do at the local cinema. </p>
<p>You make a good point that people are embracing storytelling by chapters more than ever before. Taking advantage of that: Perhaps by mimicking the format model of a TV show, and focusing on TV/cable/internet/etc as the distribution medium, independent filmmakers would find their audiences would accept more and take more risks because the time/cost investment is so low. It’s obviously more fruitful than trying to “get into Sundance” or drag crowds out to huge screenings.</p>
<p>I think this is what Lucas is getting at. He’s not “getting out of the film business,” as some headlines have proclaimed. He’s just changing his distribution medium. It wouldn’t have been possible decades ago, but audiences today have developed a taste for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd</title>
		<link>http://www.red40entertainment.com/ideas-on-the-future-of-film-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-42</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.red40entertainment.com/?p=96#comment-42</guid>
		<description>Well, yes and no. As far as &#8220;which is better at long form narrative,&#8221; I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a film vs. TV question, since there&#8217;s little difference in the content. You take all the episodes of Lost, string them together without commercials and you have a really long movie. Conversely, The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars films could be broken up into episodes and shown on TV a week at a time. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difference is in the delivery&#8212;and which delivery mechanism appeals to which audience. Bringing it into the home has allowed films to reach TV series-type length&#8212;Lord of the Rings Extended Editions? Now you don&#8217;t HAVE to watch it all in one sitting. Yet psychologically, because it&#8217;s categorized under &#8220;film,&#8221; I don&#8217;t know a single person who would sit down to watch, say, The Deer Hunter, without expecting to finish it up two and a half hours later. Because it&#8217;s not artificially divided into &#8220;episodes,&#8221; we&#8217;re programmed to watch it all the way through, like we do at the local cinema. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You make a good point that people are embracing storytelling by chapters more than ever before. Taking advantage of that: Perhaps by mimicking the format model of a TV show, and focusing on TV/cable/internet/etc as the distribution medium, independent filmmakers would find their audiences would accept more and take more risks because the time/cost investment is so low. It&#8217;s obviously more fruitful than trying to &#8220;get into Sundance&#8221; or drag crowds out to huge screenings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is what Lucas is getting at. He&#8217;s not &#8220;getting out of the film business,&#8221; as some headlines have proclaimed. He&#8217;s just changing his distribution medium. It wouldn&#8217;t have been possible decades ago, but audiences today have developed a taste for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, yes and no. As far as &#8220;which is better at long form narrative,&#8221; I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a film vs. TV question, since there&#8217;s little difference in the content. You take all the episodes of Lost, string them together without commercials and you have a really long movie. Conversely, The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars films could be broken up into episodes and shown on TV a week at a time. </p>
<p>The difference is in the delivery&#8212;and which delivery mechanism appeals to which audience. Bringing it into the home has allowed films to reach TV series-type length&#8212;Lord of the Rings Extended Editions? Now you don&#8217;t HAVE to watch it all in one sitting. Yet psychologically, because it&#8217;s categorized under &#8220;film,&#8221; I don&#8217;t know a single person who would sit down to watch, say, The Deer Hunter, without expecting to finish it up two and a half hours later. Because it&#8217;s not artificially divided into &#8220;episodes,&#8221; we&#8217;re programmed to watch it all the way through, like we do at the local cinema. </p>
<p>You make a good point that people are embracing storytelling by chapters more than ever before. Taking advantage of that: Perhaps by mimicking the format model of a TV show, and focusing on TV/cable/internet/etc as the distribution medium, independent filmmakers would find their audiences would accept more and take more risks because the time/cost investment is so low. It&#8217;s obviously more fruitful than trying to &#8220;get into Sundance&#8221; or drag crowds out to huge screenings.</p>
<p>I think this is what Lucas is getting at. He&#8217;s not &#8220;getting out of the film business,&#8221; as some headlines have proclaimed. He&#8217;s just changing his distribution medium. It wouldn&#8217;t have been possible decades ago, but audiences today have developed a taste for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Left Coast Missourian</title>
		<link>http://www.red40entertainment.com/ideas-on-the-future-of-film-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>Left Coast Missourian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:06:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.red40entertainment.com/?p=96#comment-41</guid>
		<description>Heh&#8230;you said &#8220;tent-pole.&#8221;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&#8217;t understand why you never realized that film is not long form narrative; TV (or more specifically, the serial form) is MUCH better at it.  And given the contemporary fragmentation phenomenon, people are embracing storytelling by chapters more than ever before.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh&#8230;you said &#8220;tent-pole.&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t understand why you never realized that film is not long form narrative; TV (or more specifically, the serial form) is MUCH better at it.  And given the contemporary fragmentation phenomenon, people are embracing storytelling by chapters more than ever before.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

