Short of the Week

Know Your Medium—Why Some Great Festival Films Fail Online

Article / May 2, 2013

We’ve seen it time and time again. A film plays for an audience on a big screen in a dark theater and brings the audience to tears or has them buckled over in laughter. Later, the same film hits online with hope of connecting to an audience in the same powerful way, and yet it falls flat and is forgotten. Why?

As the redeemed Marshall McLuhan first said in 1964, “the medium is the message.” Storytelling takes on many other forms—forms that often shape critical aspects of how a story unfolds. There are stories that work better as novels, others as films, as games, or something else entirely.

We’ve come to appreciate that the online world is not just a new distribution platform for film but a new medium entirely. We’ve underestimated the fundamental differences it has with the world of theatrical film. A new medium demands a new type of story. Storytellers who understand the strengths and weaknesses of this new medium, will tell the best, most innovative stories online.

Yet there are many filmmakers coming from the festival and theatrical world who look down on the online medium. Why? What are the differences when moving from the festival world to the web? Let’s dive in.

“Small Screens”

We hear the complaint all the time from filmmakers about small screens and poor compression. More broadly, it’s about quality—online screens tend to be smaller, sound isn’t 18 channels, and compression can leave artifacts in your beautiful picture.

Tell a great story!

Quite simply, don’t rely on quality. As much as filmmakers gripe about small screens, the importance of technical quality is highly overrated in storytelling. Great stories transcend technology. One thing the overwhelming growth in mobile tells us is that viewers are more interested in convenience than quality. And as history shows us, quality improves over time, so this complaint is becoming less relevant every year.

Be clear, be bold—don’t hinge key story moments on tiny details and frame your action a bit closer. Some filmmakers have even made an aesthetic of embracing the degradation like animator, David O’Reilly.

“Broader Audience”

The more accessible the medium—the broader the audience. While film festivals screenings (and paying $15 to see a handful of unknown films) will attract a very select group of viewers, online audiences tend to reflect the broader world—some may even say a more populist viewer with no patience for challenging stories.

Find Your Audience!

Don’t let the lure of a selective festival audience fool you. What happens is that festivals tend to attract a certain type of film. There are many great films like the collaborative To This Day or sci-fi story-starters like True Skin that festivals can’t accept simply because they don’t fit the programming needs of the festival.

A broader audience means you can tell a wider range of stories. Vimeo, YouTube, and Funny or Die all play to different audiences with different expectations. You need to find the audience that fits your story. For more traditional festival films, go with Vimeo. For serial content like a web series or franchise, YouTube is hard to beat. Do the research and find the platform your audience is on.

“Distractions”

At the theater, you have the full attention of a captive audience. On the web, your film competes with the largest source of media the world has known. A viewer has millions of choices for entertainment—Hulu and Netflix are just a click away. When you do manage to grab someone’s attention, your film can be viewed on Facebook, Twitter, Short of the Week, or a platform site full of content and advertising all desperately trying to grab your attention. And not only do you compete for attention with the rest of the web, you compete with everyday life. Online films can be watched just about anywhere—on the bus, in the bathtub, at work. You, the filmmaker, have little control over when or how your story is viewed. For those coming from the festival or theatrical world, putting your work online can feel like becoming a street performer after playing at a concert hall.

Kick up the Pace!

On the web, you must compete for attention. And it all comes down to pacing. Pacing is one of the most critical aspects of storytelling and yet I can’t tell you how many online films I’ve seen with beautiful cinematography, great premise, great acting, great everything all ruined by a slow, 20-minute storyline that goes nowhere. A slow pace may work in the monopolistic environment of a theater, but not in the highly competitive online world. Soldier Brother, an interactive film from the NFB, cleverly combined both audio content and a running SMS feed that has you multi-tasking in the world of the story.

Any filmmaker who has edited on a laptop and then screened their film on a 100-ft projection knows that size effects pacing. General filmmaking rule: Smaller screen = faster pacing. Filmmaking duo, Daniels, have done this well with their own brand of fast-paced absurdist comedy. These films would be too short or chaotic in a theater setting, but play perfectly online.

Not all films need to go cut crazy to work online. Most importantly, you need to open strong and create genuine interest. As the great author, Kurt Vonnegut, would say, “Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.” Cut the long, epic opening title sequence. Get the viewer invested in the first shot. The type of story where you put the viewer through 10 minutes of exposition before a final Shamalan-style payoff, (ed. Shyamala, sorry M. Night!) will have a tough time finding an audience online. Most viewers don’t get past the first minute—make it count.

If you already have a slower-paced festival film that you want to put online, consider re-editing your film for the faster pacing of the web. Theatrical films need to be recut and cropped for home video. Online films are no different. It can be a lot of work, but it’ll do more for your film than anything else.

“Loss of Control”

Which leads us to perhaps the most important difference—control. Let’s be honest, compared to other storytelling formats like books, we filmmakers have had it good. In theaters, we control the time, the place, the darkness of the room, the volume, the angle at which you sit, and the foods you’re allowed to eat. For audiences, watching a film in a theater is a very passive experience. Online, at any moment, the viewer can click away, jump ahead, mute, or do any number of things to mangle your story.

Make it Interactive!

Hand over control of the story. Invite viewers to participate in your film—even if just to share it. Some of the most unique and powerful story experiences out there invite a greater level of participation like our 2012 Short of the Year winner, Welcome to Pine Point. The NFB’s Bear 71 and Soldier Brother and Chris Milk’s Wilderness Downtown and 3 Dreams of Black are other examples of great stories that invite you into them.

Share something remarkable—literally—a story worth talking about with others. With my own film, The Thomas Beale Cipher, we purposefully hid 16 encrypted messages in the visuals of the film. At festival screenings, they went by too quickly to read and decipher. Online, where viewers control the playhead, they went back to dig deeper and the story became more meaningful. Embrace the loss of control—invite the audience in.

This is the Beginning

The web is a new medium for storytelling. Great stories on the web don’t depend on big screens and immersive sound but on the fundamentals of great storytelling. They play to broader audiences or in some cases new audiences outside the festival world. They compete for attention with quicker pacing and a strong opening. They’re interactive and open up the story to their audience. To recap…

  1. Tell a Great Story
  2. Find Your Audience
  3. Kick Up the Pace
  4. Make it Interactive

The web is still young. The first films made in the infant years of cinema mimicked the stage settings and viewing angles of the theater. Today most online films today still resemble their festival counterparts. Over just the last couple years we’ve begun to see new web-specific genres emerge like interactive films, branded films, and web series. And we think this is just the beginning.

Some will fight it. But where they see compromise and struggle, I see an incredibly provocative platform with the potential for new types of stories to define culture at a deeper level and bring a greater understanding to a broader, more engaged audience. Go be a part of history.

~
Andrew makes no attempt to hide his love for the magic art of animation. He appreciates compelling visuals but never forgets that in this modern age, a strong story always reigns supreme. You can see his work at andrewsallen.com or his latest film The Thomas Beale Cipher.
  • http://www.facebook.com/jasondhi Jason Sondhi

    Love the article, but even so, to frame online in comparison to a theatrical “ideal” does do it a bit of disservice.

    Being seen on small screens is not a reality that must be grappled with it is an opportunity! There is an absolute media glut in Film and TV, the ability to be consumed at work, in a train or on the john, that’s huge! That’s time that is valuable and is something traditional media can’t access.

    Online also isn’t just an opposing dialectic between “select” festival audiences and “broad” online audiences. It’s an ability to interact with, seek out, and market to highly select niches that the world over that could never be brought together in a physical space. Ultimately the dialogue and feedback that comes from engaging in this way is waaay more substantive than theatrical, and is a living, evolving conversation that informs how your film is consumed and appreciated!

    I understand the perspective Andrew is bringing to this, because he and I recognize it when we talk to filmmakers all the time, but still, remember that online isn’t a problem to be solved, but a liberatory medium as well =)

  • Valentina Vee

    Yes, I agree. It’s very important to know your audience when making a short film for distribution on the web. This is a great guide and I will make sure to link it whenever possible, since I get asked these questions a lot myself. It would be interesting to test whether a film that is successful online can play well in a festival. It seems that having a solid story, up-front visuals, and a quick pace will serve well outside of the small screen world too, don’t you think?

  • http://twitter.com/ShahirDaud Shahir Daud

    Great article as always Andrew,

    Just one thing: It’s an interesting point about story, however I wouldn’t entirely dismiss technical proficiency, which should always be methodology for ensuring your story is as clear and concise as it can be. Agreed that a great story will always trump something that’s beautifully shot but empty, but a great story needs strong technical hands in order to be told (ie. Glory at Sea looks ragged and scrappy, but its a $100,000 film with a lot of amazing talent behind the camera). McLuhan’s “Medium is the message” also alluded to the fact that content is only as relevant as the medium it is delivered through, and the more proficient way that content is delivered, the stronger its chances of it being heard.

  • http://www.andrewsallen.com Andrew S Allen

    Thanks for chiming in, Shahir!

    I definitely agree. Storytelling is exactly what it sounds like story + telling. And how you tell a story including aesthetic choices and production quality play an equal role in crafting a great experience.

    My point about quality is more about the quality of the medium—we shouldn’t be using it as an excuse for not being able to tell great stories. I believe great stories can be told anywhere—on the radio, in person, using only sand, etc. Understand the limits of a medium, and you can use its strengths to your advantage.

  • http://nofilmschool.com/ Ryan Koo

    Glad to see this discussion extending beyond my short Amateur, where we discussed some of these same issues when you guys graciously shared it on this site recently:

    http://www.shortoftheweek.com/2013/04/17/amateur/

    Normally as a filmmaker I want the work to speak for itself, but given we run websites explicitly to further the art and craft of filmmaking through sharing and discussion, here are some hasty thoughts. I’m going to assume that this line refers to my film at least in part, and if I’m wrong feel free to disregard my pontification: “The type of story where you put the viewer through 10 minutes of exposition before a final Shamalan-style payoff, will have a tough time finding an audience online.”

    If Amateur feels like it’s paced more like a feature, if it feels like it should be watched in a theater… it’s supposed to, since it is very specifically a prequel to a feature film. That was certainly a goal of mine. But was it the RIGHT decision as far as my stated goals of spreading the short to sports websites? Strategically, from a marketing standpoint, it could definitely be a mistake to make something that feels theatrical and that feels slow when it shows up on a website where the audience is used to watching highlight clips (I’m talking about sports websites, not SOTW!).

    But I do think it’s an interesting discussion. Filmmaking to me is making yourself vulnerable. In the age of the facebook like button, aiming to make something that pleases everyone is a more understandable goal than ever. But if Amateur is “a writer’s piece,” as Jason called it, that’s the best compliment I could ask for. A writer’s piece about high school basketball recruiting? That to me is what makes it sui generis. There is a difference between art and marketing and I think our challenge as filmmakers today is to figure out how to market the art you wanted to make. Among the marketing and the art, which is the horse and which is the cart is a challenging question, though.

  • http://nofilmschool.com/ Ryan Koo

    Glad to see this discussion extending beyond my short Amateur, where we discussed some of these same issues when you guys graciously shared it on this site recently:

    http://www.shortoftheweek.com/2013/04/17/amateur/

    Normally as a filmmaker I want the work to speak for itself, but given we run websites explicitly to further the art and craft of filmmaking through sharing and discussion, here are some hasty thoughts. I’m going to assume that this line refers to my film at least in part, and if I’m wrong feel free to disregard my pontification: “The type of story where you put the viewer through 10 minutes of exposition before a final Shamalan-style payoff, will have a tough time finding an audience online.”

    If Amateur feels like it’s paced more like a feature, if it feels like it should be watched in a theater… it’s supposed to, since it is very specifically a prequel to a feature film. That was certainly a goal of mine. But was it the RIGHT decision as far as my stated goals of spreading the short to sports websites? Strategically, from a marketing standpoint, it could definitely be a mistake to make something that feels theatrical and that feels slow when it shows up on a website where the audience is used to watching highlight clips (I’m talking about sports websites, not SOTW!).

    But I do think it’s an interesting discussion. Filmmaking to me is making yourself vulnerable. In the age of the facebook like button, aiming to make something that pleases everyone is a more understandable goal than ever. But if Amateur is “a writer’s piece,” as Jason called it, that’s the best compliment I could ask for. A writer’s piece about high school basketball recruiting? That to me is what makes it sui generis. There is a difference between art and marketing and I think our challenge as filmmakers today is to figure out how to market the art you wanted to make. Among the marketing and the art, which is the horse and which is the cart is a challenging question, though.

  • http://twitter.com/ShahirDaud Shahir Daud

    Hi Ryan

    First up, I really thought Amateur (despite the title!) was truly an exceptional piece of craftsmanship and writing. I’m fairly certain the “Shamalan” line wasn’t directed at you. In fact what makes Amateur so rich is that the “reveal” serves to highlight the entire point of the story, and the audiences own probable misconception of the characters.

    That said, I am always a little weary of films which are pointing the audience at something else, ie. a feature film, or an upcoming production. It can potentially reduce the actual content of the film down to advertising, which in itself isn’t a bad thing (ie. Roshambo), but just generally not my favorite thing in online content.

    My other concern about Andrew’s article which I didn’t voice, because I generally agree with him, is where is the room for geniune ‘slow cinema’ – the kinds of films by Nuri Bilge Ceylan or Roy Andersson? Can short and online film accommodate the kinds of films which genuinely challenge the audience, that offer something which is truly though-provoking and outside the cultural norm? If we suggest that online media can only be ‘quick and good stories’, aren’t we limiting the potential of filmmakers who want to use the medium in other ways? (Where would Stan Brakhage or Michael Snow exist in this limited paradigm of short filmmaking?)

    So, onwards with the discussion. Most importantly, I’m glad SOTW exists as a forum to discuss these issues, and hopefully stimulates the minds of like minded artists who are passionate about the medium.

    Speaking of which… back to pre-production!

  • http://www.andrewsallen.com Andrew S Allen

    You’re doing it right, Koo. AMATEUR hits all these points except pacing. On that point, there’s a tradeoff for filmmakers like you between number of views and showcasing your ability to tell a longer, character-driven story. It comes down to how you define success for your film. From our conversations, it seemed less about connecting with the broadest possible online audience and more about connecting with future collaborators for your feature.

    So far, the only real online films we’ve seen make the jump to feature development have been special-effects or action-driven shorts. If you can show how it can be done with a character-driven drama, you’ll have the filmmaking world at your feet! We’re rooting for you.

  • http://www.andrewsallen.com Andrew S Allen

    The points I lay out here are about connecting with an online audience and that can be done for broad audiences or more niche audiences. Challenging stories are by their nature not for everyone (otherwise they wouldn’t be challenging, right?). Every filmmaker has to find where their film falls in that spectrum whether it goes online or anywhere else for that matter.

  • http://nofilmschool.com/ Ryan Koo

    Thanks Andrew! I think another challenge is I’m doing it in reverse — I already had the feature script and then took a step back and made a short. For a special-effects or action-driven short, the headline deals that result are usually development deals where the studio has input in the process. For an independent film that’s already written (which is not to say that there won’t be more script changes), it’s a different situation. We’ll see…

    What would also be interesting for slower films would be the ability to see audience retention stats — if there was a moment in the video where everyone was dropping off, that would be telling. But with vimeo at least we don’t see these things (unless PRO has it?).

  • Miguel Santana

    I think there are some interesting gray areas in the ‘online’
    distribution methods for sure, with things like Apple TV, making these
    great online shorts feel nothing less than full-blown blu-ray releases
    through a home theatre setup – online doesn’t always mean people
    catching the latest SOTW offerings on their phone during toilet breaks ;
    )

    Personally, I’ve had a somewhat disheartening experience
    trying to get my short some attention, both online and at festivals.
    Coming from a VFX background (I’ve worked on Skyfall, Wrath of the
    Titans, Man of Steel etc.), I invested some serious time – and money,
    into making tight graduation short that ticks all the boxes for a happy
    medium online and off. Maybe this compromise was its downfall?

    It’s
    under 8 minutes, has plenty of visual effects treats, some of which are
    right near the start (done only to invisibly compliment the story, I
    was very conscious of not making another soulless effects-driven short),
    has a very tight, to-the-point narrative – clear goals, a sympathetic
    lead, conflict, a great orchestral score, cinematography, production
    values… and if I may say so, it actually works as a little film!

    The
    feedback I’ve had from it has been astounding, not just from friends
    & family, but other filmmakers and even some high profile players in
    the film world, who thought it should do very well. I’m not delusional,
    I’m very critical of my own work, but I genuinely think it deserved a
    little more attention than it got.

    Having had no luck getting
    into top or second tier festivals, I assumed it would have better luck
    online, given its visual, visceral and short attention span-friendly
    pace. And yet, after getting a couple of fantastic write ups on film
    sites, it still hasn’t hit the critical mass I was hoping it would,
    given the feedback from anyone who had watched it, and my own detached
    judgment.

    I’m just at a bit of a loss why something that seemingly ticks all the
    boxes and is generally very well regarded by viewers, has somewhat slipped
    through
    the cracks, into viewcount-stagnation hell. Not necessarily talking
    about my film, but I’ve seen some incredible work that just sits on
    Youtube and Vimeo with a few hundred views, and not for lack of social
    media push.

    Do you think it could have been a mistake to try and
    marry a snappy, visual film with the festival bait of a period piece
    with traditional structure? A jack of all trades, master of none?
    Granted, I wish now I could have made it a bit longer, given the drama a
    little more room to breathe, but there’s nothing wrong with a slightly
    more plot-driven film, right?

    I don’t know, just trying to make
    sense of it all. Don’t want to sound self-entitled, I just thought it’d
    do better than it did. Maybe I’ll just do a 3 minute short about robots
    and spaceships for anyone to notice next time : )

    Anyway, here’s
    the film, if anyone’s interested. And please, be honest, tell me why you
    don’t think it got prominent festival or online attention. I can take
    it, honestly : )

    It’s called Still Falls the Rain, set in wartime
    1940s London, about a boy who gets caught looting from a bombed house -
    a crime that could warrant the death penalty at the time:

    https://vimeo.com/54004198

    Sorry for rambling,

    Miguel Santana

  • Jason B. Kohl

    I’ve gotta second that; I’m a pro user and I can see loads versus plays, but I have no idea when someone drops out of a film. It would be pretty fascinating to be able to do so.

    That being said such information could also be a pandora’s box for filmmakers, which poses an essential question; how much audience critique/information before the creative voice/process/etc. becomes diluted?

    Would you (the rhetorical you as well as Ryan) reedit a film if you saw people were dropping out at minute three? Could you be sure that reediting would necessarily address the “problem” if you did?

    I saw filmmakers (including myself) reedit short films for years in film school, but am now inclined to believe that 90% of short film problems happen before a camera is ever turned on (the two big ones imho being script and casting). Therefore a lot of those problems were perhaps slightly improved upon but never undone by years of editing, sound design and color tweaks.

    Perhaps these sort of metrics could push filmmakers back into the vicious circle of postproduction on an old short with insolvable problems, when they should rather be working on a new piece of work with new, potentially solvable problems and new experience to be gained.

    This seems once again to raise one of the paradoxes of the internet age; how much audience participation/collaboration/metrics/feedback actually benefits the quality of the film? It’s a question that assumes quality as the highest goal of the filmmaker, which may not always be the case.

    Really provocative article, Andrew. I never expect to spend 30 minutes writing a comment; it’s always a sure sign that I just read something powerful. Thanks for sharing!

  • http://www.andrewsallen.com Andrew S Allen

    Great question, Jason.

    First, I’ve seen editing transform many films (including my own) from the hum drum into something powerful, so I’m a big believer in it’s power to shape or reshape a story.

    This is a question about feedback. Feedback isn’t new to the industry. Most studio films go through rounds of test screenings to “test” the film and find areas that can be improved. The internet simply makes it possible for all of us to potentially solicit that feedback in faster and cheaper ways. Whether or not you, as a filmmaker, want that feedback or want to act on it is, of course, up to you. Though I’ll add that it seems feedback is more important for films aiming to reach a broader audience.

    FYI, seeing viewer interaction over time and where viewers fall off is a feature that YouTube provides (though you have to dig to find it).

  • Jason B. Kohl

    You’re absolutely right about editing, when I reflect back on my last film I cut 8 minutes (from 23 down to 15), and most people were shocked at the improvement.

    That’s interesting that youtube offers that feature, and also how regular the slope actually is. Takes a bit of the fun out of imagining it :)

    The feedback is an interesting question, but I do feel as if feedback in person, with people you know or who know you, is different than “testing.”

    I believe that feedback throughout the process essential for any type of film, but learning who to get it from, when, and what to listen to is a huge part of any filmmakers’ development.

    Perhaps to rephrase what I was talking about earlier, the grey area I found was after the initial rounds of editing feedback, where the structure is fairly locked and many things come down to small tweaks before going in to color/sound design (which can also make a huge difference). That’s where I found myself and friends stalling on occasion; that moment before you pull the trigger to finish a film and send it into the world. The other obvious reason this happens is because the last stages of post can cost a lot of money.

    In terms of looking at feedback, I was more interested in considering the impact of strangers’ feedback on a film’s creative process. If Amazon Studios’ experiment in crowd-written screenplays is any indication, there still needs to be a place for an individual (or several) filmmaker with craft and vision to make creative work of value.

    I would say that while the studio feedback model has been around for a long time, it’s far from proven in terms of box office or critical success of a film (Soderbergh had a few choice things to say about it in his State of Cinema talk). If it was, the world would be a very different place. It definitely depends on the film, but it also seems like testing can be a CYA thing as well, an attempt to quantify and predict something that is often anything but. This obsession with statistics has all sorts of ramifications at a broader societal level (standardized tests in education, arrest statistics in politics, etc.) as well.

    The internet allows us to solicit feedback faster, but certainly not in the way that studios do, with movie theaters full of semi-random New Jersey or Chicago shoppers who fill out questionnaires. Though I could imagine a start-up coming up with a similar idea for indie filmmakers at some point.

    That being said, as Soderbergh mentions, some of the the feedback systems in place seem to work very well for certain types of films. The sad part may be, as SOTW mentioned in its “Has Hollywood Lost Its Way” article, that this very form of testing for mass appeal, when combined with the changing economics of the film industry, may be diminishing the studio’s interest in original stories.

  • Adam

    I took this argument a step further back in May and wondered whether there’s a whole new medium waiting to be invented.

    http://journal.adamwestbrook.co.uk/the-web-video-problem-why-its-time-to-rethink-visual-storytelling-adam-westbrook/

  • http://www.andrewsallen.com Andrew S Allen

    Nice article, Adam. I’m convinced the web will become less of a platform and more of a delivery medium that will bifurcate into different types of viewing experiences like home theater vs mobile which will demand different content.

  • Ilya

    I think this short animation ?an serve as an perfect example to point 3: Kick Up the Pace
    https://vimeo.com/72205725

  • Anonymous

    Great insight, as always!

  • Anonymous

    Yeah let’s yield to the device size and attention span of your average “grazer”. This will surely elevate the art. Interactivity is great, but then it’s not really a movie is it? If you go to give a lecture, the audience doesn’t get to decide they want to you to talk about puppies or ten minutes in ask you wrap it up or they will bring in another lecturer. At some point you have to decide is this about a creative vision…about a genuine creative impulse or are you just milling out crap to try to hit some target. If you get a million hits, does that make your art “good”? You know what plays really well online to millions of people….porn.

    “some may even say a more populist viewer with no patience for challenging stories.”

    Well why in god’s name would you make a “movie” FOR this kind of person. Let him watch cartoons or sketch comedy while he’s walking around paying half attention to the world. I would say that devices like apple tv, roku and the next generation of smart TVs will bring internet content back onto big screens…even if it’s just the house’s main TV. You watch things differently sitting in your living room than you do on a smartphone just like you watch things differently when in a theater with a group of people than you do at home.

  • http://www.andrewsallen.com Andrew S Allen

    Great art has great impact. It spreads a new message to a lot of people, and to reach those people every artist or filmmaker has to thread a line between message and entertainment. You can make a clear but dry message and few will see it or you can make a fluff piece with no message and have no impact. It’s why many storytellers get into film in the first place—to share a creative vision that combines the “challenging” with the “enjoyable”. In most cases, the two don’t mix, but great stories are concocted from a magic recipe that manages to get these two opposing ingredients to work together harmoniously—those stories are what we feature here on SOTW.

  • The Last Raptor

    I’ve been thinking about this a lot while in post production with my short film
    THE LAST RAPTOR. I’d love it to have a long and healthy life online well after the last festival entry. It just might work out well online because it’s colorful, has a raptor, and takes ques from Edgar Wright. But who knows… I rarely watch something online over 5min unless it’s on Netflix, and our film is probably going to be 15min.

    Would you care to take a look at the current cut Andrew? It’d be sweet to have some outside perspective.

    Right now we’re near picture lock and getting ready to move on to VFX, color correction, sound editing, and music. And it’s my duty to throw the website address up there: http://www.thelastraptor.com

  • http://www.andrewsallen.com Andrew S Allen

    We take submissions where we offer feedback. http://www.shortoftheweek.com/submit

  • http://www.thelastraptor.com The Last Raptor

    Oh, cool! I think we still have some work to do, but I’ll be sure to send it in when the time comes.