The Place of the Feature Film?

I have recently been considering the changes that have taken place in independent film distribution over the last year or so. The rise of YouTube and other online video services have made the short film format pretty much ubiquitous. New opportunities to get short films seen by a worldwide audience are becoming available every day.

But what about the feature film?

By it's very nature, the two-hour narrative feature film (the type which Hollywood specializes in producing) have become somewhat outdated, as evidenced by the tremendous downturn at the American box office since the summer of 2005. As the short film (and its distant cousin, the TV show) has become more and more prominent, it's getting harder than ever for independent/low-to-no budget filmmakers to get feature films seen by audiences.

I bring the whole issue up because I have been writing another feature length comedy, my first since "The Professional" in 2003. I began writing "The Professional" in the summer of 1999, and wrapped production in the fall of 2003. At that time, features did not carry the same taboo among the indie film scene. If anything, a tightly made, entertaining feature was easier to market because it could stand as a night's entertainment on its own, as opposed to shorts, which usually have to be packaged together in an hour and a half block.

But all that changed in 2005, concurrent with the collapsing box office (and, despite their best efforts, it is beyond the studios' control to make this stuff marketable to the point of turning a profit-trust me, I worked doing some marketing research at the time of the big collapse), with the launching of YouTube. Now, we see the upturn in interest in the indie short as the preferred format of choice.

The timing of the emergence of YouTube is significant for that very reason. Prior to YouTube, streaming video was relatively rare on the Internet except for news sources. There were sites such as iFilm and Brownfish that offered streaming video. But let's examine the crucial differences with those types of sites and what sets YouTube apart. I'll look at Brownfish as the example.

Brownfish.com first came to my attention about six years ago, when someone pointed me to one of their videos that had been posted on the site. Interested, I checked into it, only to find out that in order to get your video on the site, you had to fill out a hard copy entry form, including entry fee, as well mailing in a copy of your film on DV. Even with all this completed, there was still no guarantee that they'd decide to post your video. On top of all this, I also noticed that the videos seemed to be from mostly the same contributors.

Everyone is familiar enough with YouTube that I don't need to go in to the differences that set it apart. But by comparing it to sites like Brownfish, you can see how quickly things have changed.

So what of the feature film? I predict that within the near future, it will be feasible to upload features to services like YouTube, although I don't think YouTube will be leading the way. YouTube is too mired in its own past in order to be anything new or exciting anymore. I foresee a new site that will essentially pick up where YouTube left off, but will offer unlimited video space, improved image quality, and stereophonic sound.

Until then, we may see the indie feature put "on hiatus" while the short film scene grows richer.