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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Is this the future of television? Yep.

[FriendlyLurker]

Is this the future of television?

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

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?

[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: 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.

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

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: 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!

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.

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.

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...

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: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.