Made-For-Torrents Sci-Fi Drama "Pioneer One" Debuts

QuantumG writes "The first episode of the new science fiction drama Pioneer One has debuted and it looks like a hit. The pilot was shot for just $6,000, raised through the micro-funding platform Kickstarter, and the production is being supported through donations on the show's website. Donations can be made on a sliding scale with 'bonus' rewards for each level, such as an MP3 of the opening theme and deleted scenes. The show is being distributed through file-sharing systems such as BitTorrent and LimeWire thanks to VODO, the group that also helped produce it. Is this the future of television?"

Comments

Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the future of television?

No.

Re:Simple answer

[Psiren]

"This production was possible due in no small part to the willingness of talented, professional people working for free"

I would have to concur.

Re:Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if it kick-starts a world-wide audience of 1 million people willing to pay $10.00 for a season?

All projects have to start somewhere. Whether it is seed money from an angel investor or sweat equity, it doesn't matter. If you're working on a project that you truly believe in (passion, political statement, future earnings, etc.), then working for free at the beginning might make sense.

Re:Simple answer

[BLKMGK]

At this point they have had little to no exposure. With more exposure and perhaps more donations more of those folks working for free might get paid. At that point yeah maybe this is viable. It's seeding HUGE right now and it sounds interesting so just maybe they will make some money on it - who knows. Perhaps contingency payments to those who work on it? Network TV seems pretty crappy lately so perhaps this will shake things up...

Re:Simple answer

[klingens]

There are a lot of talented, professional people working for free: Linux programmers, Debian developers, Gnome developers....
And don't say they get paid lots of money for it: they certainly didn't get any money when they started.

Are you saying there is less free talent available in the AV arts than in programming?

Re:Simple answer

[Psiren]

There are a lot of talented, professional people working for free: Linux programmers, Debian developers, Gnome developers....
And don't say they get paid lots of money for it: they certainly didn't get any money when they started.

Are you saying there is less free talent available in the AV arts than in programming?

No I'm not, and I didn't say they wouldn't be successful. They may well be, and I hope they are. The question posed was whether this was the future of TV. I can't see it, there just isn't enough security in it for all those people working in TV to bet their working lives on.

I think there's certainly room for projects like these, and I hope to see more of it. But it's not going to replace regular TV making, much as we may wish it to be so.

Re:Simple answer

[c6gunner]

The question posed was whether this was the future of TV. I can't see it, there just isn't enough security in it for all those people working in TV to bet their working lives on.

But that wasn't the question. When Henry Ford created the assembly line and started pumping out cars, there wasn't much security in it for the blacksmiths and carriage-makers, but it still became the future of transportation.

Re:Simple answer

[bunratty]

Most of the development on major open-source projects is done by paid developers. Red Hat, IBM, and other companies pay their programmers to develop Linux. Mozilla pays developers to work on Firefox. I'm sure there are some programmers working for free, but if those projects had to get by only on volunteer work, they wouldn't be like they are today.

Re:Simple answer

[Maxo-Texas]

I watch more and more things like this.

Every minute spent watching these is a minute not spent watching the expensive pro stuff.

There is a serious glut of entertainment out there. More than we could ever consume in 10 lifetimes now. And every day another week of material is created.

As the inexpensive or free stuff grows, it is crowding out the expensive stuff heavily laden with commercials.

For me, it's more likely to crowd out cable than movie theaters. I can't duplicate the experience of sitting with 500 enthusiastic people on the first few nights. I can't duplicate the experience of the huge screen (tho I can come close).

Re:Simple answer

[copponex]

Are you saying there is less free talent available in the AV arts than in programming?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but good artists are much harder to find than programmers. Good production requires good set designers, lighting directors, casting directors. Not to mention that the AV equipment required and support staff to run it cost much more than a single computer and an internet connection.

I've watched about 10 minutes. So far, you have stilted dialogue, characters talking to each other about plot points received from phone calls, a DHS agent who claims to know 47 languages, and very, very bad acting on top of all of it.

The plot seems original at least, but this is again proof that the BBC has the best model for rewarding good ideas. Publicly funded organizations that pick up new writing talent and help them develop their ideas with professional experience.

I work in the audio field and this reminds me why the democratization of cheap AV gear has not led to better sounding records. No amount of cheap fidelity can replace decades of experience making things sound better. And it can't replace a good producer telling a room full of writers that their scene is a crock of shit.

Re:Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Firefly didn't capture enough audience to pay for the production costs *plus* distribution costs *plus* desired profit? Likely there was another show (dancing with stars? blech!) that was shown to make more money in that same 1 hour slot? I dunno.

Re:Simple answer

[karnal]

You also can't duplicate the chance of whiny kids crying for 1/2 the movie (happened to me for XMen 2) or random people whipping out their cell phones during the film. Even though most don't actually talk on their phones, the fact that the light attracts my attention away from the movie is a real distraction.

Plus the fact that most of the larger chain cinemas feel the need to push the audio way too high. In Columbus, there's a place called the Movie Tavern. Has a bar and restaurant - uses what I would consider "cheaper" computer chairs and you sit behind a table so you can eat with a mild light. Another plus for them is that they don't crank the friggin audio. AMC @ Easton - yea, they crank it so bad my ears ring.

I must be getting old. But tldr version - Big Chain Movie Theaters are usually not a good experience in my opinion.

Re:Simple answer

[iluvcapra]

Hi, I'm a sound designer who regularly contributes his work for free (or for very low rates) to the projects of newe filmmakers.

I can tell you that if I didn't have a regular paying job working on commercial movies, there is no way I'd be able to contribute my spare time to freebees. Having a well-paying job allows me to keep my own equipment and have the savings necessary to spend time working for free, and being a member of my union (and relying on other people working and paying into the insurance pool) makes sure that I have health care when I work on freebees.

I'm sure it works the same way in development, no? Programmers contribute there time to open source projects, but the most skilled programmers who accomplish the most work and make the best contributions are professionals who are doing so in their spare time. Amateurs might be good for testing or doing the sort of things in filmmaking we leave to interns, but production is a sophisticated profession and requires years of experience in a particular trade to have proficiency and cutting-edge skills, and if you aren't doing it all the time you just never have a chance to develop those.

These projects are a great way for the creators and crew to network and get their idea exposed, but the goal is to secure funding and produce the show in a conventional way, after proving the concept is viable and commercial. BitTorrent is not a usable or profitable means of replacing television, but it might be a new way for studios to discover pilots.

Re:Simple answer

[BLKMGK]

I've not watched much stuff like this but I HAVE watched a few series that I thought were decent do well and then DIE due to network stupidity. FireFly is everyone's fave in this regard but Defying Gravity and Dresden Files are also good examples. I worry about shows like Sanctuary, SGU, Eureka, and others more mainstream like Lie to Me, Saving Grace, and Numb3rs. "Reality" TV just plain sucks, I won't watch it. But it's CHEAP to make by comparison and they can just keep throwing crap at the wall to see if it sticks. Shows funded like this at least have a chance if they're good and people who follow it have some input.

I agree there's a glut of entertainment. What we need is interesting entertainment!

I enjoy movie theaters, I do NOT enjoy the sky high prices, the asshat punks with cellphones, and the sticky floors. I go occasionally but not nearly as often as I watch shows at home. Big screens are cheaper and cheaper and if I had a basement a projector would have already followed me home for sure. Projects like XBMC and unRAID allow folks to setup VERY nice HTPC systems fairly cheaply to access tons of media. Unless prices at the box office regain some sanity it's only the highly anticipated movies I'll be looking to see - the rest I can wait on...

Re:Simple answer

[Kingrames]

Actually it might be better. Imagine, if a show didn't have to worry about censorship, warning labels, or the esrb or any of the federal agencies that keep the airwaves "clean".
There might someday be a porno with an actual good plot.

Would be kinda naive of us to dismiss the idea that people would want to see that.

Re:Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Dancing with Stars from 2002 in the top 10 current best selling blu-ray movie section on amazon.com? because Firefly is...

Re:Simple answer

[Cylix]

In terms of set design and other attributes I have dabbled in those areas a bit in my lifetime. One person could potentially fill the role of many, but good luck doing any of those things on a budget.

The notion of cheap, but capable video gear is equally applicable to audio. Waving a cheap 1080p HD cam about is just going to look like waving without proper support and instrumentation.

Still, with some experience and ingenuity you can do fairly OK things with a lot of effort and a little bit of cash.

Shooting it always proportionally easier to the amount of capital investment ;)

Re:Simple answer

[TheRaven64]

Fox said no, and yet the profit from the DVD sales alone (ignoring syndication) were enough to fund an entire new season. If the TV companies hadn't been involved, with two layers of indirection between the TV creators and the TV consumers (networks and advertisers), then Firefly Season 2 would have been a profitable proposition.

I would have paid $10 into a fund to film season 2 and release it under a creative commons license. I strongly suspect that enough other people would have done the same for them to have been able to make a reasonable profit. If season 2 had been good, I'd have put another $10 towards season 3, under the same terms, and so on. Once they'd released season 2 under a CC license, I could have given copies to all of my friends and encouraged them to contribute towards season 3.

Re:Simple answer

[iluvcapra]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but good artists are much harder to find than programmers. Good production requires good set designers, lighting directors, casting directors. Not to mention that the AV equipment required and support staff to run it cost much more than a single computer and an internet connection.

In LA a significant slice of the population owns equipment that can shoot 720p and has production equipment -- every other house in the Valley seems to have a garage converted into a studio of one type or another, so in some places it's definitely easier than others. But even that being so, very few good no-budget independent projects are produced here, no more or fewer than any other part of the US. The real limiting factor, as you indicate, is the human talent, particularly in the acting and writing. Even FOSS projects fail unless the lead developers are very talented and persevering, and know how to code, and lead others, and communicate well, and promote and market and support..

Re:Simple answer

[erroneus]

Firefly didn't go because someone's short-sighted sites are set too high. Firefly was and in many respects still IS successful. The problem is that it was either not enough or too much of some metric that probably doesn't accurately measure quality or audience appreciation.

Re:Simple answer

[CastrTroy]

It's only very recently that actors have joined the ranks of the elite getting paid high sums of money for their work. It was the case that for many years, being an actor was seen as a very lowly job. Even now, only a very small percentage of actors make a lot of money. Most of the other actors make their livings as waiters and act only in local productions. Perhaps this is a way for small time actors to spread their work to a larger audience. I know I've got just as much enjoyment (many times more enjoyment) going to my local theatre (live play) as I have watching the latest blockbuster from Hollywood. There's no specific reason why actors should make lots of money or that films should cost a lot to make. For a short period, it was very expensive even for the basic camera equipment. However, now that things have come down in price, and you can essentially distribute and market the movie for nothing, why not move back to the old model where actors did it for the love of the work, and a little extra money, rather than paying people millions of dollars, and paying way too much to see the show. I'm not saying stuff like this will kill the hollywood blockbuster, with multimillion dollar budgets, but it may just replace stuff like TV sitcoms, where the budget could be extremely low, and you could still get just as many laughs.

Re:Simple answer

[sjames]

There was no security (or income) in Free software at the start. Eventually, paying jobs in Free software started to appear and the Free OSes have a majority of the server market. I wouldn't expect this to completely replace the networks, but it could certainly put a dent in them.

Re:Simple answer

[iluvcapra]

It's only very recently that actors have joined the ranks of the elite getting paid high sums of money for their work.

Check your sources on that: Jimmy Stewart is generally recognized as having received the modern agency/gross points deal for Winchester '73 in 1950, and many independent producer/actors, including Charlie Chaplin and Fatty Arbuckle had gross deals in the silent era. Even when they didn't get grosses, contracts actors at the Big Five in the thirties would easily earn an average workers years's wages in a matter of weeks,

Actors who make this kind of money aren't paid because they're good actors, though often they are.They receive this level of compensation because their name on the poster literally guarantees people will come to see the film. If you've ever heard the term "bankable actor" this is where it comes from-- an actor is such a guaranteed draw that a producer can literally get a bank loan for their film on the basis of that actor's appearance in the film.

The actors demand their share of the money because they are the draw. That's what a "star" is.

Re:Simple answer

[Oligonicella]

The TV show didn't catch because it was originally aired out of sequence.

Re:Simple answer

[sjames]

I haven't watched it yet, but your description sounds a lot like the pilot episodes of many eventually successful shows. Had Star Trek TNG or Voyager remained like their pilot episodes, even the die-hard Trekkies might have turned them off in a month or two. That's just the nature of pilot episodes.

Re:Simple answer

[guyminuslife]

You're talking about wildly different situations.

The difference is that the successful free software has paying jobs for it mostly because the successful free software is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. A program like Apache is popular not because anyone wants a web server for its own merits, but because they need one for a web site that hosts whatever project is their end. Large-scale open-source projects like Mozilla are able to stay afloat mainly because they *don't* rely on donations or the kindness of strangers; they have a revenue stream already built-in.

On the other hand, a TV show is not a means to anything. Doesn't mean it's not valuable, it just means that nobody's going to fund its development unless they can monetize it, which in the case of entertainment, means commercializing it. (Ads, premium, whatever.)

I'm downloading the show and if I enjoy it, I may make a donation. But I don't expect that they'll make much more than production costs. If they make a really popular show, they might be able to continue it. And if it's something they enjoy doing and keep their day jobs, then it's a win-win for everybody. But I sincerely doubt that they'll actually compete with professional production.

Re:Simple answer

[nine-times]

Starting news businesses often requires that talented people start off working for little/no money. It doesn't need to stay that way.

There are lots of different issues involved here, but the real question comes down to what business models are available for funding production of TV shows on the Internet, and then whether strict DRM and distribution controls are required for those business models to work. The specific protocol (bittorrent) is really a side issue.

Of course they're going to need to make money at some point, but I don't see any reason to think that they can't. I'd like to see companies producing shows for channels like Netflix, iTunes, and Hulu, while bypassing the normal studio/network system. I'd be even more likely to buy shows from something like iTunes if they'd drop the DRM.

Re:Simple answer

[iluvcapra]

But what if it kick-starts a world-wide audience of 1 million people willing to pay $10.00 for a season?

Just to keep it in perspective-- A very popular, broad-appeal hit show like "Glee" generally get about 5 million viewers a night, but they don't have to pay anything to watch it. A one-hour scripted drama can cost anywhere from $1 mil to $5 mil an episode.

Re:Simple answer

[ThePhilips]

I'm all for TV and movies learning to slim down their budgets and becoming more independent.

I wish to say "YES" too.

Re:Simple answer

[ThePhilips]

Not so fast.

Big studios and record labels spoil artists with huge rewards. Or at least a promise of the huge reward. Breaking the bad habit might take long time.

Re:Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, instead of posting snarky comments on slashdot, you could be jerking off to porn.

Re:Simple answer

[YrWrstNtmr]

It's seeding HUGE right now and it sounds interesting so just maybe they will make some money on it

Yes, its seeding big. Today. Come back in 3 weeks/months and see how well its seeding.
My prediction - minimal.

Re:Simple answer

[sjames]

Ad agencies might beg to differ. I can easily see an ad agency finding great value in having exclusive rights to insert ads into a popular Free program. They don't fund current television programming just because they like to watch TV.

It could be a huge win for the various things you can't advertise in prime time (or at all) on broadcast TV.

Given the lower cost approach, the shows could probably have a fraction of the commercials as a network show and still easily pay for itself.

Re:Simple answer

[Rich0]

I'd be happy if the local cinema at least learned what harmonic distortion is, and which gain knob to turn to turn up the volume.

The sound in the theater isn't actually that loud. However, it distorts like crazy on the louder parts. Obviously they have a pre-amp turned up to high and their final gain set too low. You can have loud sound that still actually sounds good - you just need to actually do it right, and invest in speakers/amps that actually are rated for the necessary wattage.

Re:Simple answer

[SIR_Taco]

I just finished watching all the available episodes of Defying Gravity (legally through the Space Channel website).

Honestly, when it first came out and I saw the commercials for it... it looked quite lame. After watching the first episode, however, I was hooked. I thought the presentation of the show was great and the premise was quite original and intriguing. I also like Ron Livingston as an actor which was the main reason that made me watch the first episode. It's very disappointing really, it would be like all of the people that were enjoying Lost during the first season and wondering: "what will happen next?". Then it being canceled.

Re:Simple answer

[BLKMGK]

You realize it's been on TPB for like a week already right? It's now seeding in the 21K range so still going up. Really you only need say 100-200 seeds to make a download fly so 20+K is silly huge. I can max out my connection grabbing a Linux ISO with less than 1K online seeding...

Oh, they want 20K to make the next 3 episodes. Prior to this story they already had more than $3K of that. http://vodo.net/pioneerone#Donate

Re:Simple answer

[BLKMGK]

I agree and I'd bet there are tons of shows out there just like it. I will admit that Defying Gravity got a little bit off the deep end towards the end but I would have been willing to stick with it and see where it went.

Check out The Dresden Files sometime. It too had an interesting premise and based on that show I got into the books - I've now read all of them on my Kindle. The Stargate series have all interested me and have had a GREAT run with SGU being one of the best yet and the others having ceased. BSG was also a good one but a bit dark and I've yet to watch it, I guess that one is "complete" with Caprica now...?

Obviously I like the SciFi stuff but I also like the criminal science shows. I still see decent shows like Saving Grace barely hanging on though and that sucks!

This particular show has a decent premise and is free to download. Check it out and maybe look past some of the camera work and more at the story. Honestly I found the premise pretty interesting but I won't spoil it for you. It's certainly not the budget of Defying Gravity but it has as much potential I think. I'll be interested to see where it goes and I'd buy the book if they cannot keep it going...

Re:Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in the audio field and this reminds me why the democratization of cheap AV gear has not led to better sounding records.

I modded you Insightful, but I strongly disagree with this comment. I think that "cheap AV gear" has indeed led to better sounding records. Just in this last year, I've heard several recordings, ones that made money, that were made in what were basically home or project studios. I think of Moby's "Wait for Me" of St. Vincent's "Actor" and even Air's most recent album "Love". Now of course these three records may have had the benefit of professional equipment and engineers (maybe) but those three artists, and those three records, could not have been possible without cheap professional-quality recording equipment and software. All three of those artists started out by making sonically interesting and high-quality recordings on the same kind of gear that I use in my own home project studio. They didn't have to make "demos" and then re-record their music in some expensive commercial studio. That meant that they could experiment to their hearts' content and release records that major labels might have passed on.

I compose and record music for film and video, as well as other electronica. I can use inexpensive gear to make music that is ready for distribution, via torrent or CD or otherwise, that sounds fantastic. I'm old enough to remember when 4-track tape was the only thing available to home recordists on a budget, and all you could make were demos. (Yes, the Beatles recorded on 4-track machines, but with the very best equipment available in the world at the time, plus brilliant engineers). Today, I can make custom mixes for headphones, speakers, car systems, 5.1 and release them in flac, ogg, mp3, DVD, what-have-you. In fact, those custom mixes are a way for me to add value and distinction in a world where there are millions of independent artists.

I'm not saying that anybody can go to Guitar Center and buy a bunch of gear and sound like Phoenix or Brian Wilson from their bedrooms, but if you have talent, like say Animal Collective or the artists I've already named, the path from making music to releasing great sounding, high-quality recordings has never been shorter.

Re:Simple answer

[LambdaWolf]

Maybe Firefly didn't capture enough audience to pay for the production costs *plus* distribution costs *plus* desired profit? Likely there was another show (dancing with stars? blech!) that was shown to make more money in that same 1 hour slot? I dunno.

The whole problem with is that not all audiences captured are of equal value any more, and studios are just now starting to learn it. One viewer that really loves Firefly and will buy the DVDs is worth more revenue than a viewer who kills an evening watching Dancing with the Stars because they're bored and then forgets about it forever. Unfortunately, the studio executives who killed Firefly didn't grasp this.

I think they're starting to learn, though. I take the success of Lost as evidence—ABC knew that Lost's viewers really loved the show and would be buying DVDs later on. Lost got a lot of accommodation in the shooting schedule and such that most other shows wouldn't have, probably for this reason.

Even so, it seems strange that TV broadcasts should still be important at all. Works that, we now know, will live on indefinitely as part of popular culture are having their budgets and running schedules decided mostly by one broadcast at one time, and fans that watch on the Internet—which many do exclusively—or buy DVD sets months later experience the consequences. Whether its replacement is Hulu or made-for-torrents series, that system will have to go.

Re:Simple answer

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Showing it out of order may not have helped, but it couldn't have caused it's demise alone. I didn't see the first episode first, but what I did see, "Our Mrs. Reynolds" and then "Jaynestown", caused me to run out and get the complete series. I've bought it 5 times so far including gifts, plus Serenity. It's the only TV I've ever watched more than two viewings of an episode. In fact, I've watched an episode within the past 12 hours, "Trash". I couldn't tell you the names of most actors in any other TV series, and can't name a single episode name from another show, but I've picked up tons about Firefly just from repeated exposure. The show is fun, well filmed, well acted, and lasting. I'd like to think that if Mr. Weadon had been able to keep producing it on his own, and if iTunes distributed "indy" TV shows, or if BitTorrent had a pay infrastructure then like it has figured out now, then that show might still be on and getting paid for out of mere donations (heck, look how well "Dr. Horrible's" did). FF didn't fail due to any one reason other than that what can be summed up as "stupidity".

I'll check out this new show. If it's any good, I'll reward it with a donation and myself with a pat on the back for making the right decision when I got rid of cable TV.

Re:Simple answer

[bertoelcon]

You also can't duplicate the chance of whiny kids crying for 1/2 the movie (happened to me for XMen 2) or random people whipping out their cell phones during the film.

Just get a crying track and some random lights between your seat and the screen, that should duplicate those quite well.

Seriously though you must have a nicer Movie Tavern than the 3 around here. All 3 of the ones around Fort Worth I have been to are loud. (They are cheap though, because they expect you to buy food.)

Re:Simple answer

[damburger]

Not to split the debate, but the fact you have to think about your healthcare situation before taking time off work for a personal project surely discourages volunteering of any sort; yet another sign the US needs to join the fucking 21st century and get universal healthcare already.

Yours truly, evil granny-killing eurosocialist pig

Re:Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that's it. I would bet the DVD sales wouldn't simply have translated to TV viewership. Do you really think more than 1 in 10 of Firefly purchasers regularly watch TV? Hell, many of them likely don't have a Cable/Satellite feed.

And that's the real problem. The real people watching TV, the real viewers that networks target, are complete idiots.

I doubt we will ever see a show of that quality on network television again. The place it will succeed is on the Internet. Those interested in such shows are slowly but surely abandoning TV subscriptions in lieu of services like Netflix (& Starz), Hulu, and Youtube. Spartacus is probably the most recent example of a show that would have failed on Network TV, but succeeded due to Internet exposure.

Re:Simple answer

[hufman]

I believe Spartacus succeeds because of sex and drama, not because of Internet exposure. It is a soap opera for men.

Re:Simple answer

[w0mprat]

Just get a crying track and some random lights between your seat and the screen, that should duplicate those quite well.

But how do you plan to replicate the smell of childs vomit? Add to that, too much popcorn and soda too quickly for a small child in 3D Avatar has a particular chain reaction among children and even adults nearby.

Replicate that with your pirated downloads.

Re:Simple answer

[j1m 5n0w]

One viewer that really loves Firefly and will buy the DVDs is worth more revenue than a viewer who kills an evening watching Dancing with the Stars because they're bored and then forgets about it forever.

I don't know that that's really true. The point of network TV isn't to sell DVDs, it's to sell commercials. If Ford runs a commercial, and viewers go out and buy Fords, the show is a success, regardless of whether the viewers were really enjoying the show.

It may be possible that if a person really likes a show, they're more likely to think highly of its advertisers, but I think the networks are really more interested in attracting the maximum number of eyballs, and the more gullible they are, the better.

-jim

Re:Simple answer

[icebraining]

Then why do you waste time playing GT4?

Re:Simple answer

[drsmithy]

A one-hour scripted drama can cost anywhere from $1 mil to $5 mil an episode.

What proportion of that goes into paying the salaries of a handful of well-known "stars", though ?

Re:Simple answer

[hitmark]

problem is that unlike broadcast tv, skipping ads on a video file is trivial.

Re:Simple answer

[hkmwbz]

That, and marketing, packaging and all sorts of stuff shows like Pioneer One won't have to deal with...

Re:Simple answer

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Great point. Imagine how much a company like Budweiser pays for one commercial during something like the recent basketball playoffs. In the 10s of thousands, right? Now imagine them spending $100K to fund a low budget TV show like this one, and getting, say, 2 exclusive commercials per episode inserted. If the season runs for 10 shows, then they get 20 views per subscriber per season. If they keep them short enough, people won't even mute or skip them since it's just one commercial. Since 10 shows is about 3 months of production, if a group ran 4 shows a year they would have a budget of $400 for "production"; and remember, the lion's share of the cost of "production" is everyone's salaries (at least once the equipment/properties are paid for the first time). This is the kind of project that could make a good living for people after a year or so of start up time. In the real world, a project which pays everyone a good salary and doesn't lose anyone money is a good thing; just because it's not sexy in that it makes investors bucket loads of cash doesn't mean that it's not a project that has great value as an end in itself.

Re:Simple answer

[Narpak]

In LA a significant slice of the population owns equipment that can shoot 720p and has production equipment -- every other house in the Valley seems to have a garage converted into a studio of one type or another, so in some places it's definitely easier than others. ...

The real limiting factor, as you indicate, is the human talent, particularly in the acting and writing.

With the increased quality and affordability of equipment (how many had even a half decent camera ten-fifteen years ago compared with today?), and many setting up their own small scale home studio; the possibility of the right person walking in front of the right camera goes up. As far as a game of number goes the increased growth of material from amateurs and industry outsiders ensures that there is also an increased chance of a true talent being noticed. While also making it possible to test the market for new concepts and ideas that established studios might not want to gamble a big budget on.

Personally I hope, and expect, that donation based productions will find its niche; and with that perhaps we might get something truly good to watch that is not had its soul destroyed by a studio bureaucrat.

Re:Simple answer

[Yvanhoe]

That is not uncommon in the profession. Working in the pilot of a serie for free is a bet that many new actors are willing to take.

Re:Simple answer

[sjames]

It's trivial on broadcast as well in the age of DVRs. Well before that, commercials were time to go to the bathroom, make a sandwich, whatever. It still doesn't render them ineffective simply because a lot of people don't bother skipping them.

There's also product placement. Nobody skips that. Sponsor name in the filename, good will, special thanks in the credits, quick shout out in an interview, etc.

Re:Simple answer

[Skal Tura]

Pioneer One is a hit imho as well.
The "indie quality" shows, but know what? It doesn't matter at all! The story is so immersive, interesting and hooking. I'm tempted to watch this pilot again right now, and want to see how the story continues. It's a very compelling proposition this set has. The acting ain't the best, but does the job well conveying the story. Special effects, like you can expect with this budget, pretty much suck, but it only puts your imagination working and filling the gaps.

In short: Pioneer One makes you think with your compelling story, and lust for more of the story.

Re:Simple answer

[Skal Tura]

Pioneer One has immense potential and i'm quite sure we are going to see atleast one more episode.

The story is so compelling and intriquing it's amazing! Really good applaus for them, especially wanting me to rewatch the pilot immediately after the first run.

Yes, i donated, and will be donating more, maybe even heftier as they offer into credits section might do it for company advertising aswell! :D

Re:Simple answer

[Grishnakh]

Don't forget the cocaine and hookers for the network executives. Shows like Pioneer One won't pay for all that.

Re:Simple answer

[Skal Tura]

I bet it's going to be seeded well even then. As for current, it's seeding quite well as my testing account is having hard time going past 1M/s (Usually seeing double that for public torrents).

Putting this on our skel for new accounts so there's going to be some strong seeding :)

Re:Simple answer

[Skal Tura]

Don't say no, it might very well happen over years.

See how much has changed in the past 5, 10years. See what's happening to traditional print media ...
Maybe in the coming 5-10years we start seeing more "indie" productions, and we watchers vote with our wallets what we want to see. I'd expect that to happen.

Re:Simple answer

[Skal Tura]

Actually, TV show is means for an end as well. It's means for making the viewer feel emotions the viewer likes, and how the viewer interprets the TV show makes those emotions trigger. An escape from reality, compelling story etc.!

Re:Simple answer

[Skal Tura]

That's the reason why advertising will transform into a format you cannot skip - ie. within the show.

Re:Simple answer

[bjourne]

Linux (the kernel) has millions of users, yet none of them pays/donates anything. There are thousands of important free software projects all created by developers receiving little to no compensation. They tried the PayPal donate now and it didn't work. There are projects like Firefox that gets lots of money, but they are the exceptions not the rule. What makes you think movie creators would be more lucky?

Re:Simple answer

[Skal Tura]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it ain't so.

Everyone can be an artist (in a way), but not everyone can be programmer (requires atleast minimal level of logical competence).

Finding good artists and GOOD programmers are hard. All programmers are not equals, just like in artists, there's a huge degree of change in quality and competence between programmers as well. Most programmers suck, just like most artists suck.

A single computer, and an internet connection does not run quite a big project in a short timespan. Sure, a TV production cannot be done by single person, while as single programmer can do quite a vast project, but the programmer cannot finish either without UI designer, Graphics designer, set of specifications, testers, and a big collection of manuals, and other reference sources. Sometimes all of that culminates on a single person, just like it sometimes culminates into a single person on entertainment (think demoscene).

You are putting TV production on a pedestal. Sure they are big, they need a lot of people, when done by studios. Just like products done by big corporations is not run by a single person.

Re:Simple answer

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Is Dancing with Stars from 2002 in the top 10 current best selling blu-ray movie section on amazon.com? because Firefly is...

That really doesn't mean anything. In the end which generated more profit? I imagine Dancing with the Stars eats up far fewer dollars per episode to make and the advertising revenue is probably eye-brow raising.

Admittedly, though, I don't really know how you find that out. Heh.

Re:Simple answer

[iluvcapra]

What proportion of that goes into paying the salaries of a handful of well-known "stars", though ?

What proportion of the audience will flip the channel if they don't see someone they recognize? Seeing attractive celebrities is a big part of the appeal of television.

Re:Simple answer

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

At this point they have had little to no exposure. With more exposure and perhaps more donations more of those folks working for free might get paid.

Even if they don't, just having it on the resume can help them out. They work for free, they gain valuable work experience, then they go on to a good paying job.

Something like that happened to me. I did freelance from time to time doing some CG artwork and effects. I also did some un-paid work that, because they weren't paying me, couldn't dictate deadlines and what I could and couldn't show. That meant that the work was done when I felt it was of high enough quality to put in my portfolio and I could show it as I was working on it. Nearly all of the paid work I did I couldn't show for over a year until the production had been released. My reel comprised mostly of my unpaid work and that was what landed me in Los Angeles working on movies. Technically I made a decent chunk of change doing the free-lance, but it was the free-work that elevated me in my career, and in the end made me a lot more money.

I'm sorry I took the scenic route to get here, but my point is that it's possible that the arrangement wouldn't neccesarily need to be for the production people to get paid. It'd be like a remote intern job. I would have killed for something like that in my early 20's.

Re:Simple answer

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Actually it might be better. Imagine, if a show didn't have to worry about censorship, warning labels, or the esrb or any of the federal agencies that keep the airwaves "clean".

Yeah imagine... cable.

Re:Simple answer

[Man On Pink Corner]

The point of network TV isn't to sell DVDs, it's to sell commercials.

Don't forget syndication and spinoffs, though. Is Star Trek's value limited to the 1968 Fords it helped sell? That's certainly the case with reality TV, but dramatic serials are different.

Re:Simple answer

[iluvcapra]

Everyone can be an artist (in a way),

Uy. Yeah everyone can be an artist, except in a way that's commercial. That's the tricky part.

You maybe can write a short story but can you read a script and write-out the main character and still have something that makes sense and is entertaining, in a week? A friend of mine is a screenwriter and he had to do this on set a week before they started shooting.

You can doodle but can you light a hallway and office set with 5 tweenies and a Kino-Flo?

You can hum to yourself, but can you record and cut five reels of foley in two weeks? Or design six versions of a sound effect for an alien machine gun, and have all of them rejected and come back and do 6 more?

Re:Simple answer

[bertoelcon]

But how do you plan to replicate the smell of childs vomit?

Get someone to vomit in a jar and open the jar and set it under the speaker for the crying track.

Re:Simple answer

[hairyfeet]

I remember reading an article by Whedon talking about possibly going this route with some Spike&Dru stories or Faith the Vampire Slayer. Basically selling swag to build up the initial cash (t-shirts, mugs, etc) and then selling the episode with a counter at the bottom telling how many more sales are required to pay for the next show. That way take the life or death of a show away from the suits (which look at how many decent Sci-Fi shows like Brimstone and Firefly they kill while putting on reality dreck) and giving it to the fans to decide if it is worth expanding.

I personally looove this idea, as it would give those of us that loved non dumbed down drama and Sc-Fi a chance to get decent programming without having to appeal to the masses. I know I would have been happy to buy swag to help pay for Angel Season 6 (Angel in Hell if you've read the comics) and Buffy Season 8 (MUCH better than the last 2 seasons of the TV show, again if you've read the Whedon penned comics) instead of simply avoiding TV as I do now. I mean seriously, how many damned reality shows and spin offs of L&O and CSI CAN they spew out?

Re:Simple answer

[sixsixtysix]

you mean, like back in the beginning, where the stars would often take time to step off stage and pimp the advertisers' wares?

Re:Simple answer

[b4dc0d3r]

What proportion of the audience will *not* flip the channel because they see some ho non-celebrity and think, "I should watch this for a bit and see who this fresh meat is" ?

In other words, how did the talentless celebrities become celebrities? They were attractive, that's all it takes. Plenty of attractive people out there who aren't in a show yet, so I don't see a barrier.

Re:Simple answer

[hitmark]

so we are going to get shows full of shout outs to all manner of brand names? not sure if thats a improvement, but at least on the tech side we may be seeing more designs that are not just "me to".

Re:Simple answer

[b4dc0d3r]

That's because everyone has already seen DWTS from 2002, and want to watch Firefly instead. Or alternatively they are watching recent DWTS and there is no recent Firefly, so they buy it.

I'm goin to further argue that DWTS and other semi-live reality shows are a social phenom. They get you to watch because your friends are watching, same as a support buddy keeps you exercising. The whole point is to experience it together from your individual private homes. Firefly and other shows are not engaging in the same way (they are in different ways lest someone argue that point).

The shows that stay on are the ones that get people talking. Whether it's Survivor or Lost doesn't matter, people talk and the studios listen.

Re:Simple answer

[vxice]

I don't know about that. The quality was passable and so was the acting/story/whatever. While effects may be less than network programming story and acting were much better than much I've seen on tv networks. Will certainly watch a few more episodes to see how it goes. As for the future? Well it is already here, and niche movies/porn/stories/news/whatever you can think about has already come about so why not tv? I sure hope it is because I've given up on a lot of major network shows, well a lot as in 3 of the four I watched, recently as they have turned away from what I originally liked. Paying for cable or satellite subscription then having to watch commercials is certainly out of the question.

Re:Simple answer

[bigngamer92]

Firefly Season 2

How dare you speak the Lord's name in vain!

It hurts me to think of how much potential that show had, and all we get is a 2 hr movie to try to sum it all up.

Re:Simple answer

[bigngamer92]

$10 would have been cheap in my opinion. $50 if they throw in the DVD for free, $100 if they provide premium Blu-Ray stuff

Re:Simple answer

[Eivind Eklund]

There are a lot of talented, professional people working for free: Linux programmers, Debian developers, Gnome developers....
And don't say they get paid lots of money for it: they certainly didn't get any money when they started.

Are you saying there is less free talent available in the AV arts than in programming?

Yes. There's lots more programmers than there are AV people. I don't think this is the main thing, though.

I've both made amateur movies and done open source programming. My experience is that movie making requires much more people, and much larger chunks of time: For shooting a movie conveniently, I need to work in chunks of days, and I need people to set up lights, run the camera, do makeup, act, direct, etc.

For making software conveniently, I can work alone most of the time, occasionally having somebody review my code or discuss some design options. I can also effectively get work done in chunks of an hour.

Until we get ways to change the necessary time allocation from chunks of days to chunks of hours, making software as volunteer effort will be much more effective than making movies.

A possible path out of this:

I suspect what will drop the price of movie making to volunteer levels is computer graphics, and that it will come from machinima. The ability to create a reasonable looking movie on the computer in a reasonable timeframe will let amateurs create movies in chunks of hours and will let single amateurs get enough experience with making movies that they can reasonably attempt larger projects.

A possible reasonable path seems to be:

• Some people get more experience creating machinima movies
• This starts being made with open source games
• These games get adapted to be better for creating machinima, creating "machinima tools"
• The ability to animate character's emotions gets added to the "machinima tool", using theory from Paul Ekman to do face animation and other body language theory to get the rest of movements to match
• Tools get the ability to go from footage to model, so amateur acting can be used to create a basis for "machinima", which is then re-rendered with improved emotions etc

This would, however, be a long term thing. It's not something that is going to happen in just a few years; there's a ton of technology development that would have to happen, and right now open source don't even seem to have a professional quality non-linear editor (though I have the impression that KDEnlive is getting there.)

Another possible path to more "volunteer" movies:

• Production equipment and software becomes much cheaper (it has).
• People do more amateur productions, because they can better compete with professional levels.
• Amateurs gather more experience.
• Amateurs create better ways of making movies on the cheap.
• More people get into amateur film making because it's less of a geeky hobby.
• More people do stuff (like e.g. impro) to get better at doing amateur movies.
• It gets easier to gather enough of a crew to make a quality amateur movie.
• Line between amateurs and professional blur, because amateurs can make money from product placement and donations.

But overall, I personally believe there will be a place for professional movie making for the foreseeable future.

Eivind.

Re:Simple answer

[westlake]

There are a lot of talented, professional people working for free: Linux programmers, Debian developers, Gnome developers....

Pros working off-hours or subsidized by their employers.

The no-show job that provides a weekly paycheck to the writer or scientist has always been an easier sell than openly spending money on the arts or basic research.

Are you saying there is less free talent available in the AV arts than in programming?

The programmer may forget how much he depends on the talent, material resources and logistical support provided by his employers.

You say you want to produce a pulse-pounding live-action space opera for the 21st Century?

There are substantial costs up-front.

You need to design, build and house your standing sets.

Expect to become intimately acquainted with zoning boards, fire codes, landlord-tenant relations.

You will need art designers, interior decorators, carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians.

Costume designers and seamstresses.

Prop-makers....

Re:Simple answer

[Thing 1]

I must be getting old. But tldr version - Big Chain Movie Theaters are usually not a good experience in my opinion.

An insight: put the tldr at the beginning. (I've started putting "Executive Summary" sections at the beginning of my too-long-because-they-include-logs emails, and it has helped my career.)

Re:Simple answer

[im_thatoneguy]

No comparison.

There is an old mantra that comes in many forms but essentially it boils down to: You can have it Quick, You can have it Done Well or you can have it Cheap. Pick Two.

I just finished working on a shot for what will be a pretty high profile no-budget short. The only reason I could do it was because I could work on it like you would an Open Source project: on my free time here and there over many months. This doesn't really work well though with production. Even with 100% CG projects you still have a 'pipeline' which all the work has to feed through. Your compositor can't start working until your matchmovers, modelers, lighters and FX animators have all finished their work. Your rigging can't finish until your modelers finish. Your texture artists can't start until the modelers finish. Your modelers can't start until the concept artist is done. There are so many dependencies that you can't just "Check out a bug." Or plug away on a feature for 6 months without holding EVERYBODY else up. What happens with 10 departments all working out of sync is that it just take 60 months. The film can't ship until everybody is done! There are very rarely "rolling updates" especially if you want to release for a film festival. You can't ship half the film and then update it a year later with a version 2.0 "Now with character development and drama!" People often only watch something once. Unless it's really good. But if you're not done, it's probably not very good.

This is even worse for live action. Your camera assistant can't work on a tuesday and your actors on a wednesday. You need everybody you need THERE ON THE DAY. Yes you can switch between assistants on different days but you can't switch between actors. You have to schedule around them.

Lastly and this is perhaps most significant: As much as I care about helping you with your film, it's your film not mine. By necessity I can only make suggestions and not have creative control. I am helping you scratch your itch. I'm not scratching my own. A significant portion of Open Source development is from developers who are helping themselves. "I need a better widget!" So they group up with other developers to make a better widget. If open source was like production it would be "Your company needs a new web server? Well I don't actually have any need for a web server but I will make one as a favor to you."

Also if those big budget projects weren't still around I wouldn't have the financial resources to help out with productions. It's the big budget projects that make me financially secure enough to throw away opportunity costs to work for free and donate my time. If all of a sudden all the commercial big budget work evaporated I would need the money.

Lastly it comes to the quality of work. If I was working on the cheap and didn't have access to the wall of computers payed for on big budget projects and the hard drive full of expensive software payed for by big budget projects I wouldn't be able to deliver the quality I can. "Blah blah blah it's the artist not the pen..." well that's not entirely true with production. There is a big difference between your mom's handicam and 35mm film even if both can deliver "High definition". There's a big difference between the quality of VFX you can deliver when you can spend 100 machine years rendering frames vs my home PC. We can make 'excuses' for Blender's open source projects (I say this with a friend who is one of the artists on Project Peach and Durian) but at the end of the day they aren't on the same quality level for numerous reasons.

And honestly it's a waste. Do we really want the Brad Birds of the world (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0083348/) slaving away at their computer for 10 years for every film? I don't. I want to pay him to make films so that he can focus on that instead of spending 40 hours a week at McDonalds flipping burgers so that he come home.

And no matter how passionate you are about your craft people eventually

Re:Simple answer

[Macrat]

The TV show didn't catch because it was originally aired out of sequence.

Little more than that.

The Fox execs just didn't understand the show and instead of showing the pilot episode that set up the universe, they forced Whedon to create an "action" episode to air first with the lame train robbery.

Fox management micro managing a show they didn't understand.

Re:Simple answer

[Maxo-Texas]

It's a valid comment.

I'll be spending 10 days at the beach in july.
I used to play sports twice a week til the knee went.
I spent the evening swimming friday night.

But it's hot where I am this time of year. This is our TV season-- 8 months of great outdoors weather and 4 months of indoor weather.

And then what do you mean by real?

Art at the museum? That's just another form of entertainment.
A friend's singing recital- same.

Going to the park? Well okay but it's hot.

I play D&D with friends. I enjoy the message boards within limits. I downhill ski.

But some folks do not watch TV. They spend 95% of their time without watching TV shows.

Maybe you are one of them. There's a balance for me.

Re:Simple answer

[AmberBlackCat]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but good artists are much harder to find than programmers.

I think good programmers are much harder to find than artists also. But if you're comparing good artists to good programmers, or comparing artists to programmers, then maybe the ratio is more even.

Re:Simple answer

[rtb61]

Once virtual robotic animation kicks in (think software engineering principles for animation scripts), there really isn't much scope for it, until of course real robots catch up to the virtual ones.

So it is the inevitable replacement for TV excluding live work. As animation replaces actor and sets for dead work, the cost advantages will simply alter the whole dead/recorded content landscape (much better reuse of screen elements in other works, complete ownership of never aging or even ageing at the right pace 'actors', the only live or on location stuff is for imagination feeds, putting the animators in the right frame of mind).

So will the tech corporations wipe out the hollywood and TV corporations, pretty much. Amalgamations, mergers, buyouts et al will just make it seem like the opposite or like it didn't happen at all but the underlying reality will be a measure of shift from actors to animators and programmers.

Re:Simple answer

[benthurston27]

Also when I went and saw Avatar a couple times during the previews it went from a while of a really dark picture to one that was pure white and I felt like I was being blinded. They crank up the lumens as well I guess.

Re:Simple answer

[MaskedSlacker]

Linux (the kernel) has millions of users, yet none of them pays/donates anything.

Really? You're going to make that an absolute statement? Are you THAT retarded?

There are thousands of important free software projects all created by developers receiving little to no compensation.

Ah, now with the weasel words. Nevermind that your conclusion is fundamentally false, even if I accept your premise. Developers of open source software receive quite a bit in compensation--that's how free software works. See, I find I need a piece of software. I make it. I release it for free in case someone else finds they have the same need. Someone else does the same, I find that I have a use for their product, and use it. That is compensation. Just because it isn't quid pro quo doesn't make it not compensation.

Re:Simple answer

[MaskedSlacker]

I mean seriously, how many damned reality shows and spin offs of L&O and CSI CAN they spew out?

As many as their advertisers will pay for.

Re:Simple answer

[MaskedSlacker]

I must be getting old. But tldr version - Big Chain Movie Theaters are usually not a good experience in my opinion.

An insight: put the tldr at the beginning. (I've started putting "Executive Summary" sections at the beginning of my too-long-because-they-include-logs emails, and it has helped my career.)

I suppose it's slightly less demeaning than just giving your boss a blowjob, for the same effect.

Re:Simple answer

[MaskedSlacker]

Ford: What, did you think Mal Reynolds would pick a good car brand? Have you SEEN his spaceship?

Re:Simple answer

[guyminuslife]

Ad-supported is not the same as freeware. Ad-supported means "commercial" in this context. If you want to say that ad-supported media is viable, of course I agree---I am aware that television exists. What you're suggesting isn't paradigm-shifting or anything, it's just "cheaper production, fewer commercials." Maybe that's a viable business model, maybe it isn't, but it's not the same thing as free software.

When you say something like, "We're going to front the money to produce a show and then release it under Creative Commons," you're shooting yourself in the foot as far as advertising goes. (As an aside, I'm sure you recognize how a release with ads is not "non-commercial.") Sure, you could bundle commercials with it, but if you're not controlling redistribution, you're going to have problems with sponsors. Most importantly, you're going to have poor usage statistics, which is probably the most important thing in dealing with an advertiser---they need to know roughly how many people are viewing the ads, and those stats are hard to come by when you've got redistribution, remixing (e.g., stripping out the commercials), and so on. Or even worse, producing the content and having your commercials replaced with other commercials by a competitor with a different contract. The license that this show is using does not offer these protections to the content-producer, which is fine if you're producing content for the good of mankind, but not so fine if you're trying to make money off of it, or even just pay your production costs.

Re:Simple answer

[guyminuslife]

And emotions are a means to moral enlightenment, and moral enlightenment is a means to getting closer to Jesus, and getting closer to Jesus is a means to....blah blah blah blah blah.

Some dead German (Heidegger? Kant?) said that philosophy was not useful, and that was precisely why it was valuable. You don't use philosophy to do anything; philosophy is the end, the purpose toward which all useful things flow. Fortunately, we don't actually have to parse that or even pay attention to it; for the purpose of this discussion, the "ends" are entirely commercial. They are things that you provide a consumer, that a consumer does not use toward another commercial endeavor. I drink beer because I like beer, not because I need to use the beer for any purpose. I drive a car because I need to get places, not because I like driving. (Although I do.) One of these is an end, one of these is a means. It should be evident which is which.

Of course, if you run a casino, beer is a means, and if you are Jay Leno, a car is an end. But it's hard to be so vague when we're talking about TV shows versus software libraries.

Re:Simple answer

[thijsh]

If they give the 14 geeks with the highest donations a personal little easter egg (or cameo) in one of the episodes they will get more money then they know what to do with... SF geek bidding war!

But I would gladly pay the $50 up front if they promise to make a new Firefly season in the next couple of years... Fuck man, I will pay ten times that if they promise to make an alternate ending to Battlestar Galactica...
I think community supported SF would actually work pretty well, just cut out the TV indeed and get quality without the restrictions imposed by that industry. The artists and the consumers, a most powerful combination without the superfluous layers between them.

Re:Simple answer

[thijsh]

A series is really made by the actors... and all good series have at least some very talented actors. Being attractive can land you a role, but it won't *make* the series.

I really do agree with you on the first part though, when I see a new face in a series I appreciate it more than when they would have gotten some older tired typecasted actor for the part. In SF they re-use actors a little too much, but all good series also have excellent new actors. And when they *do* use a good actor for a new series it helps if it a totally different genre, like the series Castle about a writer... they even had an epic reference to him being a 'space cowboy' dressed completely in Firefly style. A cool little personal homage...

Re:Simple answer

[RichiH]

> Admittedly, though, I don't really know how you find that out. Heh.

STOP APPENDING USELESS CRAP STATEMENTS LIKE 'heh', 'lol' ETC. IT MAKES YOU SOUND JUST AS STUPID AS PEOPLE INTERJECTING 'like' ALL THE TIME. THANK YOU!

Re:Simple answer

[Lumpy]

I disagree. the problem was that the creators were stupid and pitched it to the wrong network and were greedy.

if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_(TV_series) made it for 5 years then Firefly certainly would have. The problem was that Firefly's creator wantedt o be rich as hell from day one instead of making his vision a reality. the production costs for firefly were so high that it needed to make lots of money out of the gate. Yet things like Andromeda and Farscape got to make nearly nothing and continue because they were both on 2 bit networks and had a yearly operation budget that was less than a single episode budget that most primetime big network shows have.

So firefly failed. Yet the other two had nice long runs.... Farscape ran so long the actors were wanting to bail out of it, creating the really bizzare last season that most fans pan.

Firefly was Great, it could have done very well. If Andromeda was able to run that long you know damn well that Firefly could have made a profit and lasted 5+ years. If it had realistic salaries and realistic production budgets.

Re:Simple answer

[Lumpy]

Hell, many of them likely don't have a Cable/Satellite feed.

only because they are lazy. FTA sattelite TV is cheap ($380.00 for a premium HD setup, $100.00 for a cheapie SD setup) and opens your horizons to what else is out there, I had better world cup coverage than anyone else in the states because I was watching it on a Brazillian TV channel, they had english commentary on a second audio channel.

Re:Simple answer

[Lumpy]

Only if you use overpaid actors, overpaid staff and go insane-nuts on sets and production gear.

THAT is the only thing that drives costs up.

Cameras that shoot beautiful video cost less than $3900 each. $6900 of you want fully manual lenses.

Actors don't need more than $30.00 an hour. if an actor asks for more than that, throw them out on their asses. the DP should get paid more than the idiot actors. and stop with the catering to the narcissistic creative types.

$6000 an episode for a TV show like Glee is certainly possible. Glee's problem is that everyone involved with it are money vampires sucking as much cash out of it as possible.

Re:Simple answer

[wrook]

Granted I (used to) work in the programming field. But I have to disagree somewhat here. The reason FLOSS became successful was not due to the increased presence of good programmers. I can tell you for a fact that the number of talented amateur illustrators in the high school I work in out number the talented programmers by at least a factor of 10 to 1. No they aren't pro-level, but then neither are most of the programmers who start out writing free software in University.

FLOSS became successful based on a number of unique factors. The first was the fact that the means to program at a "pro" level was available to almost everyone who wanted it (in wealthy countries anyway). Especially at the start, programs were NOT complicated. You could spend 100 hours cranking out horrible code and somebody would want it. Things are different now, of course. But because getting in was easy originally, a culture was born that allowed FLOSS.

In the arts, this is often not the case. Unless you have a big budget and a bunch of highly paid pros, you aren't likely to produce something that someone wants. And so it is difficult to build up enough of a critical mass of free/commons developers to support its own activity. We are flooded with cheap/free-of-charge art. And the standard is very high. It is extremely difficult to break into that.

But I think this attempt (along with a few others that have proceeded it) is a step in the right direction. The reality is that *some* people don't care about having the highest level of production quality. They are willing to put up with quite a lot. Even if the percentage is very, very small, (say 1 in 10,000) in a large population it can add up to a reasonable number of people. 1 in 10,000 of 100,000,000 is still 10,000. It is insignificant compared to "real" arts, but it is significant enough (probably) to start something that is self-sustaining.

That's the other thing about the time that FLOSS came into being. At the time, the internet was becoming available to the people doing this kind of development. And they could find each other and build small virtual communities. And thanks to the early efforts of a lot of people in the free software community, a set ethical agreements was reached that allowed people to contribute to projects without having to fear that this contribution would be appropriated some way.

We're starting to see some traction in other areas these days. Creative Commons is unbelievably important in this endeavor. But just like it took at least 10 years before the average person could even begin to see the point of FLOSS, it will take time for free and open artistic endeavors to gel. I would be very surprised if 20 years from now we don't see this kind of thing as being relatively common (though, perhaps not mainstream) -- just like FLOSS.

Re:Simple answer

[elrous0]

No, Firefly didn't take because mainstream audiences don't generally take well to unorthodox science fiction, not initially anyway. And, with Fox being one of the most jittery networks in the world when it comes to cancellations, it was unlikely to ever get even the chance to find an audience (if there was one to be found). Ron Moore made a smart decision by going to SciFi with Battlestar Galactica. If he had went to Fox for the big $ (as Joss Whedon has so foolishly done, so often), it would have never made it past a few episodes of the first season. Big $ means big expectations. And, like an opening weekend with a big budget movie, if your series can't deliver a big audience pretty fast out of the gate, you had better stick to cable.

Re:Simple answer

[elrous0]

Jaynestown was a great episode. But it's not nearly as funny if you don't have any background on Jayne Cobb, and hence how absurd the premise is. Still, there are a lot of great moments in that ep for everyone. My favorite is still the line from a drunk Wash: "We gotta go to the crappy town where *I'm* a hero!"

Re:Simple answer

[Draek]

I work in the audio field and this reminds me why the democratization of cheap AV gear has not led to better sounding records. No amount of cheap fidelity can replace decades of experience making things sound better.

True, but it *has* led to the average indie record sounding better than the professional stuff, mostly because the professional stuff is enginereed to be a pile of crap by design.

And all that's missing is a couple reality and vampire shows and TV will have reached a similar point as well. Broadcast, at least, already did.

Re:Simple answer

[billcopc]

No, seeing attractive celebrities is a big part of the appeal of the world wide web.

I sure as shit don't watch Breaking Bad for the "attractive celebrities". I watch it because it's an entertaining show with good writing and character development.

And frankly, tits are plentiful and cheap. Talent is scarce, and in my view, far more valuable.

Re:Simple answer

[billcopc]

There are thousands of important free software projects all created by developers receiving little to no compensation

Stop right there. The compensation is software that does what we need and helps us push technology forward. Even just having all that code laying around for all to see is a fantastic educational corpus i.e. "How do I do X like so-and-so-app ?" Easy, open up the C source and see how they did it.

The fact that a guy like me, bit of a jack of all tech, can download a tarball, edit a few lines of code and tweak any piece of software to my exact needs is worth more than any Microsoft support contract (to me).

That, in my opinion, is the most rewarding aspect of open source software. I do a little free work, submit a patch or test something on my many boxes, and in return I get a massive pile of ever-improving software that helps me be a happy, productive alpha geek. You just can't put a price tag on that.

Re:Simple answer

[drsmithy]

What proportion of the audience will flip the channel if they don't see someone they recognize? Seeing attractive celebrities is a big part of the appeal of television.

You're missing the point, which is that "it costs $millions to make a TV episode" is not an accurate statement in terms of the future viability of making TV shows, if a non-trivial proportion of those $millions goes towards a relatively insignificant number of people for little reason other than they're famous.

Re:Simple answer

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Thanks for the lesson in internet etiquette, Captain AllCaps.

Re:Simple answer

[crakbone]

I think there is far more to it than that. At the time the network was pushing Dark Angel and put it in Firefly's spot. I remember being upset about it at the time because the writing for Dark Angel was so crappy. I get the feeling that there is a ton of office politics in the television industry that will make and break shows. It doesn't matter if the show is great or not they will cancel it. If its a good show with great ratings they will throw it against the best the other networks have to try and break their hold on the time slot. Then cancel it when the ratings go lower. The way Television is managed destroys creativity and quality. It doesn't matter what you produce as long as you get ratings upfront and if those ratings make network executive "blank" look good. Other wise your toast.

Re:Simple answer

[Maxo-Texas]

I have to agree-- more than one studio chain has chased me out with their volume. They don't seem to care.

The occasional crying baby is not preferred but I can deal with it as a trade off for 500 people going "OOOOO" or laughing or clapping as a group.

I'm lucky that my NON movie tavern (I really don't like them-- it's hard to deal with a WAITER walking by during the film- esp the last 30 minutes when you must pay DURING the movie).

I go to an old fashioned Cinemark theater which charges $6 for night time and $4 for day time showings in comfy seats in a real theater.

Re:Simple answer

[RichiH]

No problem. I might even have done that on purpose ;)

Re:Simple answer

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

xD!!

Re:Simple answer

[Omestes]

only because they are lazy.

Or because they don't care. $380 is much higher than my $19 a month for Netflix, and $0 a month for Hulu, and my $0 a month streaming TV from other sources via a re-purposed MacMini. The lack of ads on my setup, to be memeful, is priceless. Me and the lady friend discuss getting cable from time to time, since the DTV switch killed all of our local channels, but it is so low on the priority list as to be almost non-existent.

When I had cable all I did was watch Dirty Jobs, and the Food Network (mostly as background noise). Hardly worth $380 (or the nearly $60 they were charging me).

Recently I house-sat for my father, and tried to kill some time watching his Direct TV, I gave up very quicky. 300 hundred channels of nothing is pretty much a literal reality. I was happy they had infomercials for sex-toys though, but I doubt the transient amusement value of that is worth much.

I can see having Cable and Sat TV for sports fans. Or people who really care about Dancing With the Stars, or people who need to watch the latest version of sitcom x as soon as humanly possible (for whatever reason). But for people not in those groups, it is pretty much worthless.

Most geeks, back to the topic, don't care much about sports, and probably don't have lives that hinging on knowing what the latest development in whatever the big sitcom of the day is. Most geeks are probably tech savvy enough to obtain their television from other sources for cheap or free, which beats paying a cable bill. Therefore most geeks don't have cable/sat for VERY sensible reasons.

The only thing I really miss about cable is being able to be indoctrinated with liberal viewpoints ala MSNBC, and occasionally getting my 4 minutes of hate via Bill O'Reilly. Though I suppose both of them are available via podcast/streaming, so if I cared much they would still be available. I apparently don't.

Re:Simple answer

[Omestes]

f he had went to Fox for the big $ (as Joss Whedon has so foolishly done, so often), it would have never made it past a few episodes of the first season.

To Mr. Whedon's credit, going for the big $ at Fox worked very well for him twice previously. Both Buffy and Angel made tons of money for everyone, so you can't fault him for trying the same thing with Firefly (if it works once, try it again, if it works again there is no harm in sticking with it). Dollhouse, on the other hand, was a dumb move.

Re:Simple answer

[anamin]

I've never been to Movie Tavern, but I've heard about it. If you like the more independent places you should check out Studio 35 over in Clintonville. I've generally had nothing but good experiences there. Small one screen theater, very friendly staff, and they have a full liquor license now. You can even have the pizza place next door deliver.

Re:Simple answer

[Chowderbags]

You can write "Hello World!" in Visual Basic, but can you write a geology, history, economy, and military simulator that can keep track of hundreds of individuals giving them each unique personalities, skills, and health levels (down to which parts of their body are injured)?

Re:Simple answer

[_Sprocket_]

The TV show didn't catch because it was originally aired out of sequence.

I see this whenever Firefly is mentioned. But I don't agree. I thought the airing sequence worked fine.

I didn't see Firefly when it aired. But before it came out on DVD, I got some recordings and watched in the airing sequence. Yes - there was a disjointed feel. But I found myself wanting to know more about these characters and why they interact the way they did. So when episodes showed character histories, I felt like it was a treat - another layer of mystery revealed.

Re:Simple answer

[tzot]

The Stargate series have all interested me and have had a GREAT run with SGU being one of the best yet and the others having ceased. BSG was also a good one but a bit dark and I've yet to watch it, I guess that one is "complete" with Caprica now...?

I've seen the original Stargate movie; the only SG series I've seen is the Universe one. I'm told that it's the only one that completely lacks any humour, and it's the darkest; in that respect, it is very similar to BSG. Some friends even complained "enough darkness with BSG, why did SG go this way?", but I don't mind. I like both SGU and BSG very much, even though my wife throws ironic comments like "doesn't anyone mope the floor over there? they live in the muck in both series".

BSG is definitely finished, no need to consider Caprica to make it certain; the series finale is considered controversial, but it was the only obvious choice given the progression of the myth.

Re:Simple answer

[sjames]

Ad supported doesn't mean non-free. I would call any television program distributed directly from it's producer bypassing cable and broadcast networks and freely copiable (with THANKS from the producer if you do so!) a game changer. The presence of a few ads or product placements doesn't make any difference to that.

As to the rest, you DO realize that the producer is free to offer whatever licensing terms might be necessary right? They don't HAVE to use the same one that the major studios and networks do. For example, they can make it freely reusable for non-commercial purposes (as you say) in order to protect the sponsor's message. You see, they just give the sponsor a special consideration. Others who might like to ride on their coat tails by replacing the ads with their own would be prevented by the non-commercial requirement.

Re:Simple answer

[BLKMGK]

Honestly BSG began to depress me so I laid off of it. I still have the entire series on disk and will eventually watch it. I've also got Caprica and the various BSG movies too.

StarGate had some serious undertones too but yeah they did laugh at themselves occasionally. It was certainly lighter and most certainly better lit too! Not many shows parody themselves but StarGate did and they did it fairly well too.

Hopefully SGU will have a good run and not jump the shark. I've enjoyed that universe and hope that they continue coming up with cool ways to continue it for awhile. I admit that I too wonder how long the razor blades and other things will last - what do they do for feminine napkins, birth control, or diapers? They've shown mending socks but how long till there's no thread? Somehow I don't see these folks wearing leaves anytime soon...

Re:Simple answer

[tzot]

About the feminine napkins and diapers: they've got towels and sheets, don't they? They'll do what people did before the invention of diapers and feminine napkins: use, wash, re-use. I believe there are lots of places on Earth that still practice this method.
About razor blades: they can be resharpened (although not indefinitely, obviously). And yes, even “one-use” razors can be resharpened somewhat (rub them in the opposite direction on e.g. a leather belt or dry skin).
And thread can be obtained from appropriate vegetation.

Re:Simple answer

[BLKMGK]

Yes, all doable but at some point they will spend more time taking care of basic needs then they will anything else! At least shelter is taken care of when it's not falling apart on them :-)

Re:Simple answer

[b4dc0d3r]

I agree with you in general, but my response was in context of the parent post to my post.

Re:Simple answer

[PastaLover]

If they want 1 million people to pay 10$, I don't think they can skip the marketing step.

Is this the future of television? Yep.

[FriendlyLurker]

Is this the future of television?

Hollywood, and big $$$ actors sure hope not... commodities commodities...

Not on IMDB?!

[Zumbs]

Strangely, Pioneer One does not seem to be on IMDB, yet.

Re:Not on IMDB?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at the relevant section of the rules for submitting new titles to IMDB:

"Because it's so easy to get "distribution" of a title online, we have some specific guidelines about eligibility for a title that has only been made available online.
The fundamental rule is that you need to demonstrate general public interest. The most common ways to meet this criterion are:

        * Have someone very well known in your cast (or extremely well known in a significant crew position). If the person isn't well known enough to merit a solo profile in a notable publication like Entertainment Weekly (or equivalent), this rule won't apply. If you have any doubt whether the person or persons are well known enough-- they probably aren't. And, just cutting in some clips from one of their old movies/TV shows/commercials isn't enough; it has to be something they did specifically for your title. And not just a 10-second soundbite on a red carpet, either.

        * Be a tie-in/spin-off of a TV series on a major network, hosted on that network's official site.

        * Go viral. Get a staggering number of views, ideally on a site where we can easily verify this claim. Again, if you have any doubt whether your title is "viral" or not -- you probably need to qualify using one of the other criteria.

        * Get coverage -- significant, national, mainstream press coverage. That means, for example, that the New York Times is doing an article specifically about your web series (not just the people behind it, or an offhand mention in an article about web series in general). If the press outlet is online-only, it's almost certainly not going to be sufficient."

Sounds to me like the only chance Pioneer One has is to go viral.

Re:Not on IMDB?!

[captainpanic]

Someone will want to count the amount of viewers anyway.
(If this type of distribution becomes popular with the industry, someone will want to find out how much money can be made from product placements in the series, or other advertising.)

And the number of viewers probably demonstrates the public interest sufficiently to IMBD.

Late News?

[bertoelcon]

It has been on the homepage of ThePirateBay for about a week now.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[WrongSizeGlass]

Just wait until the MPAA hears about this! They'll try everything in their powers to show how this 'Made for Torrent' content has harmed them because no one had to pay for it. I can hear it now "This will cause irreparable harm to the movie industry by offering free and non-predictable content to the very masses we've been training for years to swallow our expensive, DRM laden predictable and rehashed tripe."

Which part?

[chill]

Quote the website:

This production was possible due in no small part to the willingness of talented, professional people working for free," explains Bernhard. "From actors to composers, they did this because they believed in the project and wanted to see it happen.

That is going to nix any plans for scaling the production model to support a full season of one or more shows.

But, if you're asking whether or not a bittorrent-based distribution model is the future of TV, consider this... Bittorrent works by doing what the bandwidth providers SPECIFICALLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO DO. That is, use all the bandwidth you can. It fundamentally breaks the over-subscription model. In short, this distribution model won't scale using the existing infrastructure and it will take major changes for it to actually work. This sort of thing only works in small amounts, not the volumes of people who veg out in front of the idiot box on a nightly basis.

Re:Which part?

[ojintoad]

Wasn't that the point of this? http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/05/bittorrent-open-sources-new-protocol-implementation.ars

Re:Which part?

[chill]

Yup, but there is no proof it is successful or effective at doing that. And, from the article itself,

Although the protocol is an open standard and offers some intriguing advantages, the technology is not seeing swift uptake. A report from TorrentFreak says that client application developers are still skeptical and some users have suffered performance degradation due to problems with the protocol.

Read thru the comments on that article to find some more issues with whether or not this will be an effective solution.

Re:Which part?

[BLKMGK]

Bull. If you leave your pipe wide open then yeah you screw up the provider. However many of us understand the usage of the throttle and by actually using it we don't fill the pipes to bursting. This thing is currently seeding with OVER 20K users for the low def version, if all of those people throttle then you and I can download this pretty easily without anyone saturating their pipe. This isn't too complicated. I seed quite a few pieces of video this way without crushing my bandwidth or pissing off my provider.

Just finished watching this show. I like the premise, I'm going to contribute. If half of the 20K seeds feel the same way then their budget just got a TON bigger...

Re:Which part?

[DJ Particle]

But some mainstream outlets already use BitTorrent. The Blizzard Downloader (to get updates for WoW, StarCraft, etc) uses BitTorrent protocol for the downloads, for example.

Re:Which part?

[Iburnaga]

Parent is quite correct. Most p2p users throttle and I don't know about anyone else but my modem eats itself alive when a connection of 3 mbs is sustained.

Re:Which part?

[cdrguru]

Yes, and all this does is move the cost for distributing materials from the publisher to the customers.

Smart move on the part of the publisher - take your dedicated fan base and make them foot the bill.

In terms of reliability and ensuring the customer gets the real thing, it does nothing. It is incredibly easy to "fork" such distributions with who-knows-what additions or changes to the content. And how would the unsuspecting "customer" know the difference?

Re:Which part?

[DJ Particle]

I didn't say it wasn't slimy, I just said they were using it.

Re:Which part?

[Narpak]

However many of us understand the usage of the throttle and by actually using it we don't fill the pipes to bursting.

Indeed. Though I would argue that for distributing a large amount of data through a mechanic such as torrent, or really any large amount of data that has to be moved from A to B with any regularity, what is needed is a fundamentally sound infrastructure. Some ISP's around the world seems content not upgrading their networks, but rather trying to make bandwidth artificially scare to charge more per bit and byte.

Personally I am happy that the Norwegian government is taking an active hand in ensuring broadband coverage across the entire country, and have now an increased focus on adopting fiber as the next step in increasing capacity. Maybe these goals aren't always implemented as quickly, or as well, as they should have, but at least the government have recognized the importance of such an undertaking. Reports and research referenced by the ministers seem to indicate (though no surprise that material referenced support the argument they are trying to make) that for the districts broadband is good for businesses and the local economy.

Re:Which part?

[molecular]

But, if you're asking whether or not a bittorrent-based distribution model is the future of TV, consider this... Bittorrent works by doing what the bandwidth providers SPECIFICALLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO DO. That is, use all the bandwidth you can. It fundamentally breaks the over-subscription model. In short, this distribution model won't scale using the existing infrastructure and it will take major changes for it to actually work.

ISPs could just put up some torrent caches and this way save on upstream bandwidth cost, delivering the chunks themselves locally.

Re:Which part?

[dadioflex]

If half of the 20K seeds feel the same way then their budget just got a TON bigger...

Half? Maybe 5% or less would be my guess. Personally, I found it un-watchable but I'm moving away from the dreck on TV and don't really need Internet dreck to take its place.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[hedwards]

But OTOH this isn't a bad way of unknowns to get some recognition and footage for when they audition. A lot of them tend to work in smaller community productions as is for practically nothing. It's really not that uncommon for an actor to be sleeping in his car while trying to make it big. Something of this sort isn't really that much worse than the status quo. You do also have people that enjoy cinematography and other trades on a hobby basis who'd be more than happy to get a slice of whatever comes of it.

But, this definitely isn't ever going to be the main way that it's done. I just can't imagine there being enough consistency to make it a workable model. But OTOOH, Fox still makes shows, and this is a tad bit less completely insane than letting them make TV shows.

Is this the future of television?

[DerekLyons]

"Is this the future of television?"

It looks pretty much like the past and present of television to me - he who gets the buzz gets the bucks.

Re:Is this the future of television?

[jedidiah]

How many pilots fail every year?

Someone has to eat that cost. If pilots end up being chosen by mass vote, the end result would probably not look that much different than what we had 50 years ago.

Re:Is this the future of television?

[DerekLyons]

Someone has to eat that cost. If pilots end up being chosen by mass vote, the end result would probably not look that much different than what we had 50 years ago.

A bunch of really short lived low budget productions?

Re:Is this the future of television?

[Sulphur]

No buzz; no Buzz Lightyear?

Bandwidth will end up costing us more than CableTV

[tentimestwenty]

I think in the next 10-15 years the large internet providers are going to put a strangle hold on subscribers and basically charge out the a$$ for bandwidth. If content producers can't charge for content (realistically), they can get the equivalent charges from the raw bandwidth. Notice how the content producers are making closer and closer ties to the service providers? Vertically integrated markets here we come.

Late to the party

[gmuslera]

Ok, it enables everyone to make their owns shows without needing infrastructure to broadcast it (as in a tv/cable station). But youtube (and several clones) are already in that spot. In fact, there are a lot of web "tv" series running in that media already for years now. And are easier to reach the big public that way (there could be even tv sets and dvrs that directly show youtube videos, and that without even getting to google tv). What other thing you could have here? video quality? offline viewing? you have it all there

Re:Late to the party

[owlnation]

"But youtube (and several clones) are already in that spot. In fact, there are a lot of web "tv" series running in that media already for years now."

Well, no. That's not really the case. Youtube is near-useless for high quality work of any reasonable length, and the eyeburning adfest that it is now won't help that.

The fundamental problem for indie film or TV makers is NOT the medium. It's always been possible to put stuff up on Youtube (where, incidentally, Youtube then owns a big part of the rights -- a dealbreaker for most people), or to put it up on bit torrent, or amazon or itunes for that matter. That's easy. What is far, far, far from easy is getting anyone to find it there.

The bottleneck for all indie filmmakers is a means of promoting their film -- if a distributor won't pick it up. You will have no chance with the mainstream media, except maybe locally. Putting it up on the web somewhere will just get drowned out in all the garbage that is on youtube, all the stupid tag-spammed mashups and skateboarding dogs. There is no easy way to let your audience know your film or show is out there. Hollywood and TVland has that whole channel sewn-up.

This is a great idea, and I hope it works out for them. But they are the pioneers, and as with all things promotion-wise, it will be much harder for those that follow them. The yellow brick road to fame always rolls up behind you.

Re:Late to the party

[Tom]

Have you seen it? The video quality is way beyond even the best "HD" on youtube. The download is well over a gig. This is a real pilot, not a youtube demo video, and yes there is something new in the distribution model. The P2P is not just a technological difference, it also means they give up control of the distribution channel.

Is this the future of television broadcasting?

[DaveAtWorkAnnoyingly]

I hope so!

Limewire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no! Someone contact the MPAA before people start stealing this film!

Only the funding model for this is new....

[RMingin]

Every week, Hollywood produces hundreds of pilot episodes. These are screened and the vast majority (~99%) are dismissed, never to be seen by anyone beyond the test screening audience.

If Hollywood had half a brain between the lot of them, they'd start a pilot episode channel via the different on-demand delivery systems (Hulu/Netflix/Comcast VOD/Verizon VOD) and get their pilots screened to an order of magnitude more people.

The difference here is that Pioneer One has put their pilot up on TPB and the like instead of on some Hollywood stooge's desk, and they're greenlighting themselves for more episodes, no matter what.

It's really not as different as it initially appears.

Re:Only the funding model for this is new....

[Bottles]

This seems to be the model for a lot of independent producers now - which is to say that they offer their production for free as a preview and judge whether to continue based on feedback from the audience.

Projects like Earth 101 (http://www.earth101.net/) which seems to be a transmedia combination of video and old fashioned radio style comedy (think Hitchhikers Guide - even down to the scheduled broadcasts) are out there without any fanfare just waiting for an audience to pick them up.

The Pioneer One crowd have managed to capitalise on the publicity of their Kickstarter campaign. Other producers have done it off their own backs. It could be argued that the real benefit of crowdfunding campaigns is not the revenue generated but the audience created and the publicity that follows.

Re:Only the funding model for this is new....

[Kjella]

Also they're hardly the first to monetize and create a grass root movement for what's essentially a pilot, Sanctuary with their for-pay webisodes was actually one step further.

Re:Only the funding model for this is new....

[evilviper]

If Hollywood had half a brain between the lot of them, they'd start a pilot episode channel via the different on-demand delivery systems (Hulu/Netflix/Comcast VOD/Verizon VOD) and get their pilots screened to an order of magnitude more people.

I'm instantly reminded of The Tick (the live action TV series). Why? Because the pilot was great, while all subsequent episodes bore no similarity to the pilot, and were simply horrible.

Re:Only the funding model for this is new....

[Ganthor]

Oh this is such a good idea. I hope that people in the industry are actually looking at this post and consider this a cheap and easy way to get very very good metrics on watch ability. Sure enough it's probably only good for tech-savy demographics. Dear Mr. Producer, This is a good idea and will cost chicken feed to run. You could take a lot bigger risks and have some surprising results. If free advice is uncomfortable for you then please pay me an obscene amount of money to consult on this project!! ;)

Re:Only the funding model for this is new....

[BiggerIsBetter]

via the different on-demand delivery systems (Hulu/Netflix/Comcast VOD/Verizon VOD)

Those are only available to the US audience. That's a brilliant way to limit your number of viewers, or if it's any good, push your audience to sharing the media over P2P. If Pioneer One had done that, my and my colleagues wouldn't have seen it.

Re:Only the funding model for this is new....

[magus_melchior]

I'm not sure that's the "funding model", although if they really get things moving they would be more similar to public television since their funding is donation-based (sans underwriting).

It's an entirely different production model to traditional television, which is probably what you were getting at. Instead of a very top-down model where a bunch of focus groups and test audiences (not to mention the whims of executives) decide whether a new show airs, these guys are unconditionally releasing their stuff for the cost of an Internet connection, a very bottom-up approach. They will, as you said, reach the eyeballs of many more people in the initial release, and probably have comparable viewer group size to niche favorites, at least.

The question will be, is their model sustainable? Can a bunch of guys with some production/acting/writing talents put up a show on their dime and at least recoup the costs on donations? My guess is, probably not-- not unless this model gains more traction.

Where is the DVD?

[Rick Richardson]

Where is the DVD so I can watch it on my TV???

Re:Where is the DVD?

[korean.ian]

You wait until the end of the season to be able to purchase that, just like for every other show.

Re:Where is the DVD?

[hackel]

Back in the year 2000 with you!

Re:Where is the DVD?

[Zocalo]

In that box of blanks on your shelf. Download the Matroska file via BitTorrent, and burn to disc with any semi-decent burner app to add a menu or whatever else you want.

Don't forget to seed, either.

Re:Where is the DVD?

[nunojsilva]

All material on this site is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license.

Although the movie is not directly hosted on its site (or is it?), maybe it's also under BY-NC-SA.

Not only could the OP just grab the video and convert it to DVD, he could distribute it too! (The only bottleneck being MPEG patents.) No need to feel guilty for sharing a version for your beloved movie player gadget!

Re:Where is the DVD?

[Zocalo]

Personally, I wouldn't class a burner app as "semi-decent" if it doesn't automatically convert .MKV files (or any other suitable format) into VOBs on the fly and add the necessary file table info to play on a standard player whenever I use the "DVD Movie Disc" or equivalent option/switch. YMMV.

Of course, you could also wait a while. I'd say the chances are pretty good that if/when the first series is done there will be a pressed and boxed set of DVDs or BluRay(s) for sale from the Series' website to help fund the next season.

Re:Where is the DVD?

[bertoelcon]

In that box of blanks on your shelf. Download the Matroska file via BitTorrent, and burn to disc with any semi-decent burner app to add a menu or whatever else you want.

Or, you could use the Xvid version and just burn it to a cd, every semi-decent DVD player should play that as is.

Re:Where is the DVD?

[RivenAleem]

Does anyone know where I can get copies of FBI and piracy warnings to throw in before the show? My viewing experience is not the same without them.

Re:Where is the DVD?

[Yvan256]

They want to geek out with .MKV files, fine.

But as you said, also offer NTSC and PAL DVD versions as ISO files.
And offering iPhone/iPod touch/iPad/iTunes compatible .M4V files wouldn't hurt either.

Re:Bandwidth will end up costing us more than Cabl

[Flyerman]

Sounds good. So anyone can create and then use existing payment methods funneled through ISPs to charge for the content?

It could be the future of *quality* television...

[hackel]

However I think commercial, lowest-common-denominator television that most people absorb will continue to be supported by advertising. Most people simply need to have their content spoon-fed to them, and even though most of them are already paying a ridiculous amount of money for it (cable/satellite subscriptions), they still wouldn't like the idea of paying for something they can get for free!

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[BLKMGK]

Personally the one good thing about this format is that if people LIKE the damned show they won't just cancel it because some asshat made a political move on another producer. I cannot count the numbers of times I've LIKED a show but it's been killed off, scheduled stupidly, or who knows what.

I'm watching this now - so far I like it and yeah I think I'll contribute to it. I'd like to see the next episode for sure!

Of course not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bandwidth is becoming ever cheaper. Every year I get more bandwidth for less money. My ISP has upgraded me some five times over the last few years. Every time my bandwidth was increased so much that I could downgrade to a cheaper plan and still have a net gain in bandwidth.

ISP's over here (Europe, the Netherlands to be precise) get their money by (trying to) sell tv-over-ip and telephony-over-ip. But basic internet connectivity and bandwidth? There is no money in that, it's practically free.

Re:Of course not...

[Skal Tura]

Yup, they practically force sold me tv-over-ip here in Finland by offering more bandwidth, new hardware and cheaper monthly. Yup that's right. Cheaper for more services.

Well, i did then take the paid discovery channels (Got to love them!) and ended up paying the same but getting free ADSL2+ modem, Digibox, popcorn, free movie rental, free antivirus etc.

And as a seedbox provider, i can contest to that bandwidth is getting ever cheaper and cheaper .. It's cost is becoming irrelevant really

Re:Bandwidth will end up costing us more than Cabl

[tentimestwenty]

No, actually the ISPs will make all the money. Small shows like Pioneer will continue to be given away, while large producers will have exclusive deals with the ISPs (or will own the ISPs) to take a percentage of bandwidth revenue.

you are wrong

[Weezul]

All that torrent based media does is provide ISPs with an excuse for using caching servers for bittorrent, which solves their bandwidth problems, just not how the media industry wants.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[RDW]

'Just wait until the MPAA hears about this! They'll try everything in their powers to show how this 'Made for Torrent' content has harmed them because no one had to pay for it.'

One thing the MPAA might get a little upset about is the list of 'DISCO members' (there must be a joke there) which the official VODO site is linking to for direct downloads rather than torrents. These are just filesharing blogs stuffed full of Rapidshare links to copyrighted media. If VODO wants to stay squeaky clean they might want to re-think their linking policy...

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[nunojsilva]

We need more examples that making a move does not mean being under the MPAA umbrella, does not mean using DRM, and does not mean "bittorrent is evil".

This is going to give "Copyrighted stuff can't be copied" people a hard time...

slashvertisement?

[v1]

as much as I don't like seeing slashvertisements in general, this one is actually fairly on topic. I do hope they do well. It's in our best interest that efforts like this succeed in a big way, and send a strong message to the movie and media cartels.

That, and getting a front page draw on a Sunday on slashdot ought to guarantee they shatter their fundraising goal over the course of the afternoon. Their servers are doing remarkably well considering what's hitting them. Would have been quite the epic fail had they been offering direct downloads instead of torrents.

But on the downside, I bet their monthly traffic allotment just busted through the ceiling and into the gruesome "pay per additional bandwidth this month" point.

Re:slashvertisement?

[DerekLyons]

That, and getting a front page draw on a Sunday on slashdot ought to guarantee they shatter their fundraising goal over the course of the afternoon.

And what happens next Sunday with the next episode or with a different production? No buzz, no bucks.

Re:slashvertisement?

[damburger]

I hope they do well to. And buy a steadycam, some sets, some good lighting, work on their acting, and do some research (Baikonur is not in Russia guys...).

I love the idea of the project. I think their concept really has potential - but the fact is I've been spoilt by TV production values. I'd rate it about equal to the pilot episode of Red Dwarf in those terms (which screened in 1988 iirc on a low budget for the time). Its going to be niche program until it can close that gap a bit. Maybe the $20,000 they want for episode 2 will go towards resolving their problems. It could be the nature of torrent series; the first couple of episodes acting as almost a 'demo tape' to solicit donations until they get enough cash to do it properly.

I'm going to donate to them, and keep watching - but for the moment at least the idea that this is closer to commercial TV than to some guys messing around with a camcorder is laughable.

Re:slashvertisement?

[magus_melchior]

But on the downside, I bet their monthly traffic allotment just busted through the ceiling and into the gruesome "pay per additional bandwidth this month" point.

Isn't that why they released it using BitTorrent? That way, if their allotment is X% used up, they can stop seeding while the rest of the crowd feeds one another.

I hope that comcast buy out SCIFI can come back!

[Joe The Dragon]

I hope that comcast buy out SCIFI can come back and show more stuff like this and less EWC.

First 7.5 minutes watched

[erroneus]

I love it already! I didn't even remotely have my hopes up about this. I expected "oh look, a load of low production quality crap that is actually someone's resume or demo reel to get a job in a big studio" but I'm having second thoughts about that now. The scenes are well placed. The gear used is a BIT too Apple centric, but I'll let that go for now. I loved that the guy wrote on the monitor with a red permanent marker! A nice laugh. I was REALLY happy to see that they didn't do the "enhance... enhance... enhance..." crap from CSI and other drama shows. Someone knows how these lives are really lived. Now I have to decide if I will donate $20 or $100 to this...

Re:First 7.5 minutes watched

[j1m 5n0w]

I watched the whole thing and thought they did a pretty decent job. Some of the camera work could have been better, but I'm willing to overlook that given their constraints. I like the characters. None of the roles seem like they've been forced in order to advance the plot (though the interactions between the DHS guy and his assistant seemed rather cliche). The "nuclear battery" thing is real technology (called a radioisotope thermal generator), and Stanislav Petrov appears to have been a real person (the Wikipedia article is probably too old to have been made up by the creators of the show). For me, it's too early to tell if the show is likely to be a good one, but the first episode is promising.

Stanislav Petrov

RTG

Re:First 7.5 minutes watched

[QuantumG]

I know a lot of geeks who are going to watch the Stanislav Petrov retelling and groan because it's such a cliche anecdote, so I'm glad you hadn't heard it and so didn't have that response :)

What you may have missed is that the specialist they brought in seems to be based on Bob Zubrin, head of the Mars society, except this guy seems a lot more personable :)

Re:First 7.5 minutes watched

[j1m 5n0w]

I had wondered if I was just ignorant, since the Petrov story sounded like something I should have heard about somewhere. I suppose that's the risk of making a show with a target audience that includes a lot of trivia nerds - it's hard to come up with surprising true stories that they haven't already heard.

(I am familiar with a very similar story about a Soviet submarine with nuclear torpedoes that decided not to fire at an American destroyer that was dropping depth charges on them during the Cuban missile crisis because they needed the unanimous consent of a certain three officers, and only two agreed.)

The Scene

[symes]

"The Scene", I seem to remember, was a made for torrent series. Also downloaded hundres of thousands of times. But kind of fizzled out at the end and the group that made it seems to have vanished. Is this the future of television? Not so far!

Re:The Scene

[QuantumG]

I used to watch that..

Targeting an audience of people who's fundamental demographic factor is that they don't like paying for stuff was probably a bad idea for a donation funded show.

Just saying.

Re:The Scene

[Tom]

Sometimes, things are simply ahead of their times. See the Newton.

Let's wait and see. Not every new concept succeeds on the first try.

Not holding my breath after watching that vlog

[macraig]

I'm downloading the pilot episode now, but if it proves to be as incoherent as that first-day-shoot vlog, I doubt it will be very entertaining.

Re:Bad Peers

[guidryp]

Really. It is nearly maxing out my 10Mb/s connection. 25% done and no bad hashes.

They need a better science advisor

[jameskojiro]

Radiation Sickness would take longer to kick in that portrayed in the series.

Re:They need a better science advisor

[CRCulver]

Plus, almost any space buff could tell you that Baikonur is in Kazakhstan, not the Russian Federation (though Russia rents the land). And the computer displays were completely ridiculous, just look at the video conference with the Secretary of whatever. I really wanted to sit back and enjoy this without nitpicking, but it's rather crap. Won't be donating, and will probably just read plot summaries of how the series goes instead of watching each episode.

Re:They need a better science advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.916766,63.314209&spn=2.113285,3.944092&z=

That circle is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. Roubels are accepted as legal tender, Tenge are not.

The problem is that the confused Star City (which is a closed suburb of Moscow, where cosmonauts train) with Baikonur.

Re:They need a better science advisor

[CRCulver]

But the land is rented. In the US the precedent is set by the base at Guantanamo Bay, which the US holds under lease. It's always "Guantanamo Bay, Cuba", not "Guantanamo Bay, USA" even though the US has jurisdiction and only dollars are accepted.

Re:They need a better science advisor

[Kjella]

I didn't go back and check the epsiode for the timestamps, but severe radiation poisoning is triggered fairly fast. From WP:

Very severe (5.58 Gy of radiation) exposure is followed by the onset of nausea and vomiting in less than 30 minutes followed by the appearance of dizziness, disorientation, and low blood pressure in addition to the symptoms of lower levels of exposure.

If the investigation was triggered by the most severe cases, and lesser cases will show up in a few days then that's by far not the most impossible part of this series.

Re:They need a better science advisor

[L4t3r4lu5]

Offer your services. Give them your email address, tell them you're knowledgeable on a specific area you think they may cover, and that they can email you with any questions regarding that.

Even if they don't take you up on the offer, you've contributed, you've shown interest. It's one more reason for them to continue doing what they're doing.

Plot with porn

[tepples]

There might someday be a porno with an actual good plot.

Reviews indicate that "someday" came when Eyes Wide Shut was released. TV Tropes has a list of other examples.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[fat_mike]

Yeah, after watching the first 10 minutes I don't think anybody in Hollywood should start worrying.

I think they should have tried to raise another $6000 and bought a steady cam or at least bought a tripod from Radio Shack for $25.

Nothing like a static shot of a staircase and having the camera vibrate in every direction

Which clone?

[tepples]

But youtube (and several clones) are already in that spot.

Which clone do you recommend if someone is bothered by YouTube's 10 minute limitation or the potential of a two-week downtime for videos that contain criticism of a mainstream media work?

Re:Bad Peers

[erroneus]

True that. I also did well in my download... not quite as fast as yours but close. Very good performance and speed.

If MediaSentry was doing its thing, I wouldn't know as I keep my peer block list fresh so as far as known hosts, I wouldn't see anything but log attempts... oh...speaking of which I guess I could check. Well I see a LOT of blocks associated with that torrent and most of them are local and foreign government and some military. I saw some "possible sentry/defender" type entries but only one for "Possible MediaDefender" from Qwest communications IPs. It did seem pretty aggressive though as the hits are pretty dense in my logs. I also have a short list of hosts sending bad data in the same log during the same time period.

If there is active interference, I'd say that operation has a chance at collecting damages. Trouble is, I'm betting they don't have an attorney in the operation though I'm sure they would have little trouble getting someone who acts like one from their actors. :)

Re:Not Kickstarter again!

[tepples]

I interpret "creative focus" in Kickstarter's reply to mean that Kickstarter is intended for projects whose end result is a work of authorship.

Re:Bad Peers

[guidryp]

I wasn't using peer block. I got a constant 800KB/s +. Why would media sentry interfere with a legit free download?

Re:Bad Peers

[erroneus]

For the same reasons that other "*AA thugs" operate and make copyright infringement claims on things that don't infringe. They are operating to get money through their operations... to claim bounties I suspect. These people who have the same mentality as the ones who thought that "blank media fines" were a good idea. You know, the ones they call a blank media "tax"? (I call it a fine because a Tax gets paid to the government and then to the people or to projects that benefit the people... it's a fine because it is turned over to private entities to compensate for alleged and unproven illegal activity.)

We know there are legitimate media torrents. They know it too. They don't want to believe it, however, and they don't want anyone else to believe it either.

No, it's not that simple - the cases don't compare

[DerekLyons]

Are you saying there is less free talent available in the AV arts than in programming?

The numbers are irrelevant to the fact that cooperation and dealing with events in the physical world is considerably different from cooperation in the virtual one.
 

There are a lot of talented, professional people working for free: Linux programmers, Debian developers, Gnome developers....

And I suspect that many have day jobs (many of them related to their volunteer 'jobs') which build their skills and pay the bills, if not time hobby hacking at their code.
 
Not to mention that you can hack around in code solo, or at least asynchronously, and distributed - something you can't really do for AV production. You can't have your props guy show up on Monday, your sound guy on Tuesday, your makeup guy on Wednesday, and your actors on Thursday, and then put everything on hold because your director's kid has the flu this week... Unlike coding, they pretty much have to be physically in the same place at the same time. The there's the issue that a given programmer may be digging into I/O code one week, and into process scheduling the next - while you're going to have a hard time finding a guy who can be a talented makeup guy one week and a talented video guy the next.

In answser to the quetion

[sonciwind]

No. Meanwhile, I'm going to download it and check it out.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[nametaken]

But, this definitely isn't ever going to be the main way that it's done. I just can't imagine there being enough consistency to make it a workable model.

Careful with those "definitely isn't ever" statements, they have a way of coming back to bite you. :)

There are a number of things about this that may or may not work. The open distribution of content is becoming increasingly common. What I think needs help is the monetization part. We just had a /. article about a "buy a frame" funding method for a movie which will also distribute freely. This one apparently runs on donations (they hope). A number of small productions seem to survive on iTunes/Xbox episode purchases and the like (Guild, et al). It's clear that there isn't an established way that works best for everyone yet, but it IS clear to me that direct donations, crowdsourced investment and episode purchases are a more direct way of making sure shows we like get the money they need, instead of being subject to all the retardedness of how TV networks work (bad scheduling, underpromotion, etc). Oh, and the cheap and free distribution route cuts out a TON of the costs involved. There's some real promise in all that.

Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

I donated. I don't really care if _this particular show_ is that good or not - I can list the 'good shows' of today one one hand, and that includes Firefly. I figure if these people care enough about what they are doing that they will do it for free/little money, they deserve my support more than the corporate middlemen churning out Dancing With The Stars and American Idol. Even if this one turns out not to be so good (I'm about 20% downloaded now) maybe the support it gets will inspire another show that's better.

Codec

[Lemming Mark]

Whilst Pioneer One isn't an Open Source project in itself, it'd be nice if they offered the download in Theora and / or WebM. If they're going to do free distribution / direct donation funding it surely makes sense to use some relevant free-as-in-beer-and-freedom tech.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

I think they should have tried to raise another $6000 and bought a steady cam or at least bought a tripod from Radio Shack for $25.

Or made a DIY version for $14, as featured on Slashdot in 2004.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

Bah, neglected to preview. The first link should be to http://steadycam.org/

The Guild

[xororand]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned "The Guild" web comedy series in this context yet. What's special about The Guild is how it started:

The Guild was inspired and written by Day, an avid gamer, who plays World of Warcraft in between acting roles in several US television shows and movies.[4] After two years of video game addiction, Day decided to make something productive from her experiences and wrote the series as a sitcom pilot."

Being an almost auto-biographical comedy, it had authenticity & heart. Its core appeared to be very close reality.

Regarding The Guild's finances:

After putting a donation link to PayPal, the fourth and fifth episodes were almost solely financed by donations

They went on to produce 34 episodes over 4 seasons, selling DVDs and hi-def downloads. ...and of course.. Felicia Day! OMG! She played NetHack... *waits for the sound of thousands of slashdotters running to buy the DVDs*

Re:The Guild

[mxh83]

Probably because it became immature crap after the first season?

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[Rich0]

I can see it working for sitcoms, or a lot of other made-for-TV content. Barring significant advances in effects technology I can't see it working for big-feature movies. Special effects are just too labor-intensive for something like that, unless you can somehow crowdsource the whole thing at a decent quality level.

State-of-the-art big feature movies often involve editing at the single-frame level - not always painting pixels, but at least tweaking settings/parameters/etc on CGI. It is rare for a top-of-the-line release to just be a matter of filming actors, or creating 3D models and telling them to move here and there and do this and that. It is all the little refinements that make for a seamless production, and which add all the cost.

They need a proofer

[Tumbleweed]

'Astrological'? Uh, no.

Re:They need a proofer

[RocketRocketship]

No kidding. The show had a ways to come back after starting on that note.

Re:All movies are "recent"

[iluvcapra]

Headline actors, even in the time of Mozart were able to demand a share of the House. The upshot of the film industry is that performance has been democratized: people, all people, are able to vote with their dollars for who they want to see, and actors are no longer judged "great" on the basis of a few wealthy and well-connected patrons and critics.

Performance even in the pre-industrial age could be extremely remunerative if you managed to land a job with a court or ecclesiastical theater company. You might not have received gobs of money, but you would have influence and status, everyone in the country would know or name, you would have the privilege of circulating with the political and social elite of the country, and you would have the power to control what other artists your patron patronized. It was true wealth in everything but the wallet.

Not very good

[masmullin]

Unfortunately, the show isn't very good. The acting is shit (with the exception of the golf guy), the writing is bad, and the production quality is subpar. I can forgive the production quality, but the poor acting has no excuse (other than to blame bad writing).

I was going to donate, but not for this.

Re:Not very good

[Troll-Under-D'Bridge]

I have to agree. It has that home movie feel popularized by the Blair Witch Project. Take the dialog. It "tries" to sound too much like real life. If I want real life dialog, I go to the nearest Starbucks to eavesdrop on the chitchat. Unless viewers start preferring "Blair Witch" type movies over a fairly well-scripted big budget movie like Pandora, no, this won't spell the end of Network TV as we know it. A better bet would be something like the Hunt for Gollum, which reaches or nearly reaches Sundance Film Festival quality. Maybe it helps that it's based off a critically successful literary franchise. But hey, if finding an inspiration is the problem, there are lots of "proto" sci-fi from the late 19th and early 20th century that only need to be updated with modern techno-babble (e.g. Jekyll & Hyde, Frankenstein, Jules Verne's adventure stories).

Is this the future of television?

[Snaller]

Ten to one, this is totally amateurish.

It could be the future if the people involved where to accept more normal salaries instead of the sick greed of hollywood. That's not immediately forthcoming.

It could be the center of television's future

[Perp Atuitie]

IF hardware develops to enable this kind of choice. With all the hype about convergence, we're still nowhere near the point where Joe Couch Potato can point the remote in the living room, pull up a program menu of network, cable, and Net-based shows and play/record whatever he wants transparently. And without having to set up a separate "media center" and figure out all the connections, config, and access. It's not really a tech problem, it's about power struggles between cable and telco, content creators, search companies, DRM trogs, and corporate dimness. The so-called libertarians will howl, but the plain fact is that we need national standards aimed at finally bringing the communications age to the folks who don't want to know any more about what their "TV" is doing than they know about how the cable or satellite picture gets to their house.

Re:It could be the center of television's future

[gedw99]

google TV might help.

The Eu project for bit torrent based multi source video streaming is great too.

magnet link

[spidr_mnky]

For those too lazy to click a couple of links:

magnet

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[Narpak]

Personally the one good thing about this format is that if people LIKE the damned show they won't just cancel it because some asshat made a political move on another producer.

One example of asshatery is the story of Warren Beatty's fight for the rights to Dick Tracy. While I do not know enough of this case to make a judgement about who is in the right, the legal battle has in effect kept any film based upon the license from being made since the original film was released in 1990.

Unfortunately it is not uncommon that a studio will sit on a license, not making an effort to use it, but ensuring that no one else does either.

BBC

[Weezul]

I'm feeling that whole BBC style 'low budget' vibe off this, maybe the BBC would pick them up?

It sucks

[shiftless]

I watched it, wanting to like it, but had to cut it off halfway through because it SUCKED SO HARD. I mean, not everything was bad, there were SOME good actors, but there were some atrocious ones. There were SOME good camera angles, and there were some really shitty ones. There was one HELL of a shitty dialogue scene (most notably the one where the "old man" is describing the almost-nuclear-war Stanislav Petrov narrowly averted, which is where I shut it off in disgust.) Etc. You can definitely tell it was shot for "under $6000", and not in a good way. The production would be MUCH improved if the producer were fired and replaced with someone competent, whose first job would then be to fire the director and replace him with someone more competent. Most of the other elements involved are not bad, they just need proper direction.

And just to be clear, I'm not "hating" on these people. I applaud their effort, but they are going to have to step up the game a bit. It doesn't matter if it's free, if it's unwatchable and unbelievable by anyone but hardcore geeks. "Stargate Universe" is "free" too, at least in point of fact since I can download both from free for the same BT site, and I know which I'd rather watch.

my tank is fight

[steak]

kind of reminds of the epilogue of my tank is fight. this is a good thing.

Re:No, it's not that simple - the cases don't comp

[Skal Tura]

That's low level coding. Put the same guy doing high level UI work... on the web. You'll see a very likely disaster as a result

Bad luck for the French

[mad flyer]

Since they are now supposed to install a (paying and windows only) spyware blocking all bittorrent software, not doing so would be an admission of guilt.

Corporate lawmaking... I somehow wonder if it's not better in china... oppressive regime sounds much more natural than shareholder dictatorships....

Re:No, it's not that simple - the cases don't comp

[DerekLyons]

Which is pretty much my point.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[DerekLyons]

Personally the one good thing about this format is that if people LIKE the damned show they won't just cancel it because some asshat made a political move on another producer.

They won't cancel it for that reason, no. But it won't do much for the tons of other reasons I've seen.
 

I cannot count the numbers of times I've LIKED a show but it's been killed off, scheduled stupidly, or who knows what.

I can't count the number of comics (independent dead tree and web) I've seen canceled because the writer got sick (or died), or the artist needed to get a real job, or the writer got bored and moved on, or any of half a dozen other reasons. Nor can I count the number I've stopped reading because they became stale formulaic shit because the writer got lazy or decided to cater to the raving fanboys.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[DerekLyons]

We need more examples that making a move does not mean being under the MPAA umbrella, does not mean using DRM, and does not mean "bittorrent is evil".
 
This is going to give "Copyrighted stuff can't be copied" people a hard time...

Since nobody has claimed that "Copyrighted stuff can't be copied", you're nothing but a karmawhoring strawman.
 
What people have claimed, and what the law states, is that "Copyrighted stuff can't be copied without permission except under a limited set of specific special circumstances".

Re:"Run, Forrest... run!"

[erroneus]

You are a disturbed and obsessive person. Get help. You are not as superior as you seem to go about trying to prove to anyone who will listen. Get help.

Matroska? No thanks

[metamatic]

If they'd made an MPEG-4 file available, I'd have downloaded it and given it a try, but the pain of converting Matroska into something I can play--and maybe having the conversion fail--isn't worth it.

(If anyone knows of reliable open source MKV to MP4 conversion software, I'd love to find some...)

Re:Matroska? No thanks

[Troll-Under-D'Bridge]

If you don't like Matroska, you can download the lower resolution AVI file (XVid codec) linked at the site. But I'm curious, what computer system of recent vintage can't play a Matroska file? I can play the 720p version (x264 codec) without any problems on my five-year-old AMD Sempron 3000 (1.8 GHz single core) system. This is using stock MPlayer under 64-bit Ubuntu with a mere 750 MB of DDR1 (!) RAM. For other systems, VLC can play most non-subbed and plain text-subbed video files you can download off the 'Net. (Some anime fans hate VLC for its "alleged" inability to play fancy "soft subs".)

Re:Matroska? No thanks

[justinlee37]

Why don't you just obtain a media program that can play Matroska files? That's way less of a hassle than converting them.

Re:Matroska? No thanks

[LanMan04]

Why not just download software that can play Matroska?

VLC
Plex
MPlayer
Movist (Mac)

Unless you have some goofy media head unit like an xbox, but hey, you get what you pay for. mkv is THE format for downloadable HD video nowadays.

future of television?

[wisnoskij]

Well first off it is not television.

But if what you meant was, is this the future of entertainment and art.
Meaning:
1) distribution over the internet
2) relatively cheap to make
3) cheap to buy

Then yes, I would agree with you.

Not that it will replace it at all. Their will always be crowds of people lining up to take whatever big media want to shovel them.
But I suspect that quite a lot of people are very interested is getting their media from places like this.

Movie Tie-ins.

[w0mprat]

Cory Doctorow can do the Creative Commons novel adataptation tie-in. But what about the action figures? Print on a 3D printer?

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[BikeHelmet]

Personally the one good thing about this format is that if people LIKE the damned show they won't just cancel it because some asshat made a political move on another producer.

$50/mo for Cable. How many shows could you fund personally per year, getting TV that connects with you?

I see this as the logical progression - moving from channel-centric to show-centric, with easy ways to contribute to just that show. (and/or company)

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[BLKMGK]

Wow, so that explains why there's been no Dick Tracey sequels - that sucks! I appreciate you pointing that out, that situation is pretty sad and I'll bet there are tons of others out there too...

keep the two possibilities?

[gslavik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur

Baikonur is in Kazakhstan ... but no matter, an interesting story instead. I would have preferred if they weren't clear on the origins of the person in the capsule ... but instead kept the possibility of time travel (it seemed appropriate to me when the stories used were the same, likewise with the gear).

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[Darundal]

The Guild is primarily funded by MS...that is why it ends up on their video site before it shows up anywhere else.

Good first attempt...

[No. 24601]

But these guys were on the right track way back in 2005:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wreck:_In_the_Pirkinning

For anyone who hasn't seen Star Wreck yet, enjoy :)

UnFriendly to ISPs?

[mattr]

Perhaps. Though if everyone was using P2P then undoubtedly individuals would achieve lower speeds.

My impression is that Bittorrent is like an updated version of a multicast setup, in other words it belongs to the class of highly efficient delivery mechanisms incorporating some kind of reflectors taking demand off the originating source.

In other words if the ISP ran their own internal tracker they could charge tons of money to their users while enjoying reduced costs to the outside Internet. I actually am having a discussion with a new P2P company that provides just such a setup. It doesn't appear the ISP gets money from sales though. I also just got 2 ads to sign up for fiber connectivity to the home, one offers cheap phone service and the other a free Internet-based video content channel. The only place that works they way you talk about is the U.S.A. where the ISPs have totally stolen all the money they were given to build out their networks. Civilized countries have plenty of fiber. It would even work for nightly couch potatoes. The only problem I expect is having systems in place at the endpoints that can handle high speed downloads and display to TVs.

hi

[helentaylor21]

Thank you for bringing a well thought out and reasoned comment to the discussion. http://latestnewscheck.blogspot.com/2010/06/tel-launches-suns-world-cup-song-from.html

Oh the horror!

[The Creator]

Imagine spending your last $6000 making a tv-series and end up losing billions because people downloaded it over the internet!

i liked it

[beanfarmer]

i really cant wait for the next ep personally, i think theirs potential in the story, and for free you cant really beat it :P

Re:i liked it

[soppsa]

good writing? which this didn't have...

Flattr

[enz]

Great pilot episode. I will definitely continue watching. I just wish they had a Flattr button. I like to set myself a limit on my monthly donations to free culture projects. I would donate to them this way.

Two Words

[damien_kane]

Doctor Horrible

Sure, we'll probably be seeing a lot more of this (this is the internet, folks, there's a lot of indie stuff out there).
Will networks pick it up? Probably not.
Is this the future of Cable? Definitely not. This business model won't pad the executives pockets enough.
This type of action does work for some shows though. Showcase in Canada picked this show up after a few successful "seasons" online.

There is, then, hope for these indie/online content producers, in the same way that there is hope for those who make iP*d apps and Steam/XBL online games.
It probably won't make anyone a few hundred million dollars, but it might net a few people a couple hundred thousand, which is still a very respectable amount of money when you're not burning it on 10,000/night hookers.

Which copyright license?

[gambino21]

I don't see any license information on the download site. Was this released under the creative commons license?

Re:Which copyright license?

[selven]

In the episode itself, it specifies BY-NC-SA.

Re:Bandwidth will end up costing us more than Cabl

[captainpanic]

I already watch HQ streaming for entire evenings (there are many websites that have series, documentaries).
I pay 20 euro / month for my internet. And I don't see why I would have to pay more for the same service in the next 10-15 years.
Downloading from torrents probably reduces the traffic rather than increases it compared to streaming, because the downloads will be spread out over the entire 24 hrs of a day rather than just the evening.

Yay!

[Thumper_SVX]

Now I can finally stick it to the man and drop my cable provider forever!

Instead, I'll be downloading all my entertainment on my Cable Internet Connection... wait...

Re:Reduced to LIBEL on your part, ERRONEOUS?

[erroneus]

Please consider visiting another forum. This place, and indeed people such as myself, really seem to set you off in ways that can't be healthy. Do something you enjoy that is also relaxing and pacifying. I get the feeling you might be due for some sort of mental, emotional or physical breakdown. If you must explode, don't be close to me.

Re: Is this the future of television? Yep.

[DarthVain]

Shhh! Quit giving them ideas!

Export restrictions?

[shirque]

The way this series is being produced may be laudably akin to the ideals of the open source movement but at least one of their distribution channels is rather reminiscent of DRM-infested proprietary IP -- thanks to the provided Veehd stream telling me that this video is not available in your country.