From Tubefilter.tv: "With the fall of some of the early web content studios like maniaTV, 60Frames and ABC/Disney’s Stage 9, there were some web series projects that went down with their ships that we thought might never see the light of day. Trenches, a sci-fi action series from creator Shane Felux was one such project. Our last check in with Felux was in August of 2008, when Stage 9 had released its pricey comedy series Squeegees to mixed results. A few months later ABC shuttered its nascent digital studio, leaving Trenches in distribution purgatory.

Now the series has found a new home, with Sony Pictures Television buying licensing the project from ABC to be released starting February 16, 2010 on Crackle. Set in the future on a a distant war torn planet, the story centers around two groups of opposing soldiers fighting against each other only to realize that the real enemy is something else. The 10-episode series, each one being about 5 to 7 minutes, will roll out with three on the first day and then continue steadily through March 5.

Shane Felux still describes himself as “a little indie guy making films in my basement.” He first popped onto the map of online fans—and ABC’s digital execs—with his breakout Star Wars Revelations fan film and follow-up, Pitching Lucas, which in 2006 won both the George Lucas Selects Award and the Audience Choice Award at the Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards at Comic-Con. When ABC execs called him up he ended up pitching what would become Trenches over the phone, using a mocked up web site that he built to walk them through the concept."

Ok hold up. On Facebook fans of the forthcoming series are praising Felux as an indie producer, fighting against all odds and showing the resourceful determination of a microcinema filmmaker. Don't get me wrong, his work here is impressive and I wish the best for him, but microcinema? This thing was being backed by DISNEY. Sony Pictures is on board now. The only thing micro about this project is the screen size it'll be viewed on. To be honest I'm not even sure if this qualifies as independent!

The trailer, albeit a tad cliche at moments, is very slick. Shane has made something which will likely be very cool. Sure it looks like Starship Troopers with the performances to match but it'll be a good ride. I just think that to parade this as a low-budget indie effort is the wrong approach. Probably the only reason this on the web and not running as a television pilot is that it was created for what is now a defunct web production company that saw the writing on the wall.

Cool looking, yes. Entertaining, most likely.  Indie? Hell no.

Recently I was reading a blog entry by a former contributor at Rewindvideo.com and Microcinemascene.  In his musings he referred to a time' before the end of the microcinema movement'.  It ended?  Perhaps he's right.  After all, our website back then had a thousand members, dozens of contributing writers and a plethora of mediocre quality films to hide the few good ones in.  Now?  Well, you're pretty much looking at it.  But I think it might be more accurate to say that microcinema has evolved.  Most of the people behind Rewind were very young, and the site did little to screen it's entries for fear of discouraging developing talent.  What resulted was a huge influx of poorly made films, and the terms no-budget and amateur were most frequently used to describe them.  In fact we reveled in it - that soft VHS quality verified that we had done it all ourselves.  It didn't get any more indie than us.

In time of course some of the site's members felt that the membership carried a juvenile quality, and aspired to raise the bar.  Thus through a series of departures and changes, MicrocinemaScene.com was born.  Under new management the site prospered for a while, and Rewind slowly flickered out.  Rewind's film festival, which had peaked in it's third year, changed it's banner, it's look and it's location, but ultimately faded away as well.  The new website had a more collegiate feel, fitting for it's now older members who had continued to progress as storytellers.  But the new crew behind the site learned as I did that operating a film co-op is a very time consuming endeavor, and after a few years and changes in management, it too ran out its lifespan.

As most know, the two sites were rejoined under a new banner, Common Film, operated again by the original Rewind operator - yours truly.  The traffic was there, the content was good, but the community had since moved on.  Largely due to it's creative commons mandate, the site yielded few regular members compared to it's previous incarnations.  It's niche podcast had a small but loyal audience thanks to a long run of interviews with filmmakers from all around North America and the UK, and of course ongoing film reviews.

But these things are websites, not some microcinema movement.  To tell if microcinema is still alive, we must first define it.  To some it refers to the medium by which it's distributed, namely the web.  To others, it's the budget - and this brings further confusion, since some think fifty grand qualifies where others would cap it at one.  Personally I've felt that five grand is a good top number - after that you're talking about serious investment which would aim for a return.  Historically, microcinema has never made a return.  It's an exercise.  A hobby of love, which yields a wide variety of quality and is accessible to all.

Who are we to say the high-school kid making a Star Wars fan film is any less a microcinema producer than the horror producer who has been shooting HD for the last three years?  It's about spirit.  Filmmakers are a passionate bunch, but all of us want to see something back for our work.  If it's profit you aim for, I would say that's not microcinema.  You (hopefully) understand the marketplace and invest your time and money accordingly.  If it's a free web release you are planning, with aspirations of praise from thousands of loyal viewers, then this is probably microcinema.

And if that's true, than microcinema isn't a movement - it's a method.  It's not dead.  It lives and breathes on Vimeo, YouTube, and hopefully now here at Film Rogue.  And as usual we'll have to sift through the crap to find the gems.  But the fact remains that all around the world people are making films simply because they want to share them, and I don't expect that will change anytime soon.

I've watched hundreds of films mailed my way over the years, even a few good ones here and there, but with most of them I have to wonder exactly whom the audience is supposed to be.  It's probably not the first thought of most filmmakers, they just have a story to tell and assume it will find an audience if it's good.  Maybe.  But looking at things in terms of financial success (which is to say it makes at least a few bucks), then the only indie films that probably have a chance to do well are niche and genre titles.

Horror comes to mind first.  For a low-budget film guy you'd think I'd be a huge slasher fan, but honestly they've never topped my lists.  Don't get me wrong, some psycho chasing barely-dressed girls around has its appeal, but it's not exactly cinematic excellence.  It will however have a much better chance of making money than a coming-of-age comedy shot on miniDV.  The audience is loyal, and they're always hungry for more.  Not to understate the efforts of horror producers out there, but a script doesn't have to be award-winning to be profitable.

At the other pole of the niche market world would be Christian-themed movies.  Again we see a well-defined group of movie watchers with dollars to spend and a limited number of options.  While the horror titles I've received far outweigh the religious ones, I can tell you that I've seen my share.  A film need not be preachy to appeal to this audience, in fact it's probably better if it isn't, but having a message of faith has a big draw - and that can mean more dollars for producers.

In addition to producing material targeted to a specific group, understanding the marketplace for that group is key.  This goes beyond storytelling; you need to be a salesperson too.  Find trade articles for the genres you shoot in, seek out the marketplace where distributors are looking for new work.  They aren't going to come to you so you need to go to them.  The web is handy in getting the information you need to shop your wares.  Festivals are great for exposure and fun, but they don't usually get you the distribution you seek.  If you want your genre film to go the distance, then you'll have to do the legwork.

One of this site's supporters is adamant that films should never be given away for free.  Last year when I talked to Kelley Baker about his take on the indie film scene he stated that you don't have to charge much, but you do have to charge something.  I'm on the fence about this, but I understand where he's coming from.  More than trying to create a microcinema market (good luck), it's about respect.  Your work is worth something.  If you give away your film to say, PBS, the next time they are going to expect the same.  And it's true, they probably aren't going to take you as seriously as a producer who offers their work at a very low rate.

But what about the web?  Take a series like Riese, which has decent production values, yet is available for free on their website.  Is their intent to establish an audience and get picked up?  I like their optimism, but I don't share it.  I've produced a web series before and also gave it away to anyone who wanted it.  Personally I just liked people's reactions and the respect I got.  Like most filmmakers I have a bit of an ego and having it pumped up a bit through praise for my work was like heroin.  But pride doesn't pay off my credit card debt.  (That being another gripe from Mr. Baker, but we'll save film financing for later.)  I never deluded myself into thinking I could monetize the series, and maybe that was a mistake because I never put any thought into how I might of.

What's your motivation in making movies?  For me it was the admiration of my peers, although I'm sure I would still get that and perhaps more if I'd actually made a few bucks as well.  Maybe your web media is a vehicle for traffic, a way to drive viewers to your site where you will monetize your work with ads or merchandise.  That's a tricky sell since it takes a lot of viewers to see any real cash, but that's not to say it's impossible.

Having been hanging out in microcinema circles for so many years I have to admit that I'm starting to lean towards Baker's philosophy.  The next time I intend to deliver my work to the web or anywhere else, I'm going to think long and hard about what's in it for me.