I am going to be on the Fox Business News network's "America's Nightly Scorecard" (630P-730P EST) tonight and I thought I would put my mind to what issues are affecting indie film right now. Off the top of my head I came up with a few issues that we need to solve to return to the glory days of years passed. I am sure with your help, we can come up with some more too.
I don't have time to rank them so maybe you can let me know how you feel.
- Too many leisure options for film to compete without further enhancing the theatrical and cinematic experience.
- Too many "specialized" films opening to allow such films to gain word of mouth and audience's attention.
- Too many films available and being distributed to allow films to stay in one theater for very long, making it more difficult to develop a word of mouth audience.
- Lack of access -- outside of NYC & LA --to films when they are at their highest media awareness (encourages bootlegging, limits appeal by reducing timeliness).
- Distrib's abandonment (and lack of development) of community-building marketing approaches for specialized releases (which reduces appeal for a group activity i.e. the theatrical experience).
- Distrib's failure to embrace limited streaming of features for audience building.
- Reliance on large marketing spend release model restricts content to broad subjects (which decreases films' distinction in marketplace) and reduces ability to focus on pre-aggregated niche audiences.
- Emphasis on upfront compensation for star talent creates budgets that can't reasonably recoup investment.
- HP&W fringe levels at too high a level to allow low-bud production to benefit from know how and talent of union labor.
- Lack of media literacy/education programs that help audience to recognize they need to begin to chose what they see vs. just impulse buy.
- Collapse of US acquisition market requires reduced budgets for filmmakers, and thus resulting in limiting content.
- Collapse of International sales markets requires reduced budgets for filmmakers, and thus resulting in limiting content.
- Foreign subsidies for marketing of foreign film makes reduces buyers' acquisition appetite for US product.
- Foreign subsidies for foreign productions contribute greater budget percentage than US tax rebates do, allowing foreign productions to have larger budgets and thus more production value and expansive content -- thus making it harder for US product to compete.
- Recession has reduced private equity available for film investment.
- Credit crunch has reduced ability to use debt financing for film investment.
- Threat of piracy makes library value of titles unstable, which in turn limits investment in content companies and reduces acquisition prices, which in turn reduces budgets, which in turn limits the options for content -- so everybody loses.
- No new business model for internet exploitation at a level that can justify reasonable film budgets.
- Lack of community embrace of new creative story expansion models that would facilitate audience aggregation and participation (to seed, build, drive audiences).
- Emphasis on single pictures for filmmakers vs. ongoing conversation with fans has lead to a neglect of content that helps audiences bridge gaps between films and that would prevent each new film to be a reinvention of the wheel for audience building.
- Panic due to the 15 year promise of crystal clear downloads over internet despite the reality that it still has not developed -- allowing the fear to move to a business practice of inactivity.
- Bootleggers have developed a platform that allows audiences to simply download whatever they want where ever they want whenever they want -- something that the film industry has yet to do.
- Loss of job for newspaper based film critics reduces curatorial oversight which lessens word-of-mouth and want-to-see.
- Reliance on synopsis style reviewing fails to provide enriching cultural context for film and thus reduces audience satisfaction.
- Lack of marketing/distribution knowledge by filmmakers limits DIY success.
- Indie filmmakers mimic Hollywood's obsession with regurgitating past success models, by regurgitating past festival hits' story-lines or navel gazing. Cinema is 100 years old but we still tell the same stories in the same ways. Audiences get bored, move on, play video games.
- Amer-Indie filmmakers are only recently starting to look at non-US-centric stories that can "travel" into international territories.
- America has no funding for the arts so filmmakers have to develop material based on pre-existing markets instead forward thinking inspiration.
- America has no co-production treaties (other than Puerto Rico's Letters Of Understanding) that allow filmmakers to access foreign soft money subsidies.
- The specialized distributors force exhibitors to program for full week runs, preventing them from developing local community audience or niche programs on off nights.
- The truly independent exhibitors are not yet developed into a collaborating organization that would allow true independent features to be easily booked nationwide.
- There is no independent collection and disbursement agency that could allow DIY distribution to take hold.
- Filmmakers still believe that festivals are first and foremost markets and not media launches.
- The ego-driven approach to filmmaking vs. one of true collaboration generally yields lower quality of films and greater dissatisfaction amongst all participants.
- Lack of real role models who represent integrity and commitment to the craft (in order to inspire others).
- Corporate hierarchy and access that is driven foremost by privilege (college, connections, class) limiting diversity and new content and approaches.
- Inability for filmmakers to influence iTunes editors to promote their work.
- Lists like this make the foolish despair.
29 comments:
"...I came up with a few issues that we need to solve to return to the glory days of years passed."
Sorry, Ted. That's the first thing you need to tackle right there - you can't go back.
I don't disagree with many of your propositions here, but I think the solution is to move forward and not think of 'the good old days." They weren't THAT good.
Right you are! To hell with the past. Full speed into the future!
I only meant that once it did seem that good films could count on distribution, that you could raise sufficient funds to make an ambitious film, that you could license your film in territories worldwide, that critics contextualized the films, and that audiences would turn out for films.
Very thorough. illuminating and almost chilling.
Now excuse me while I go jump off the Brooklyn Bridge!
(But not before making sure a fellow indie filmmaker is taping it and has set up a website, established FaceBook/MySpace/Twitter presence, devised an out-of-the-box release strategy, booked in-person screenings, got DVDs and "I Saw Bill Jump!" T-shirts & merch...)
"Once it did seem..."
'Deed it did.
Ray Price yesterday: "Yes it's terrible. On the other hand, I don't remember a time when any of us said, 'It's been a great year and next year is only going to be better.'"
Hey Ted –
As you may know, Gigantic recently launched a digital cinema, www.giganticdigital.com, that addresses many of these issues. I’ll take them one by one. (For more detail you check here: http://tinyurl.com/czyztt)
1. Too many leisure options for film to compete without further enhancing the theatrical and cinematic experience
We can’t enhance the theatrical experience but our ticket price for first-run films is $2.99 for up to HD-quality, commercial-free streaming.
2. Too many "specialized" films opening to allow such films to gain word of mouth and audience's attention.
Gigantic Digital will never pull you off-screen before your film has had a chance to establish itself in the marketplace and generate word-of-mouth.
3. Too many films available and being distributed to allow films to stay in one theater for very long, making it more difficult to develop a word of mouth audience.
See above.
4. Lack of access -- outside of NYC & LA --to films when they are at their highest media awareness (encourages bootlegging, limits appeal by reducing timeliness).
We are now offering the Gigantic Digital service to any distributor (and select DIY filmmakers and producers) as a way to dramatically extend the reach of their first-run window. We open day and date with the first day of the run but we limit access to the film exclusively to those parts of the country where bricks and mortar engagements will not occur. In this way we never compete with theatrical while at the same time extending the potential reach of the film in its first run window way beyond any traditional 4000 print national release. Oh, and we provide publicity and marketing support in each of those markets gratis.
5. Distrib's abandonment (and lack of development) of community-building marketing approaches for specialized releases (which reduces appeal for a group activity i.e. the theatrical experience).
As I hint at just above, this is where Gigantic Digital shines. We’re on the bleeding edge of technology but we’re old school in the sense that, in the good old days when independent distribution was actually fun and exciting, exhibitors were active partners in the release. They knew their audience – usually personally, - they knew the local media, they were creative marketers and they probably paid an advance sp they had actual skin in the game and worked their asses off to make the engagement successful. We don’t pay advances – yet – but we do all the work that the local art house stopped doing many years ago.
6. Distrib's failure to embrace limited streaming of features for audience building.
Self explanatory.
7. Reliance on large marketing spend release model restricts content to broad subjects (which decreases films' distinction in marketplace) and reduces ability to focus on pre-aggregated niche audiences.
Again, we’re working in tandem with distributors (and select filmmakers/producers) to market the shit out of their films without requiring a single extra dollar in P&A and practically no additional work on their part.
8. Emphasis on upfront compensation for star talent creates budgets that can't reasonably recoup investment.
Those are not independent films. Those are star vehicles and are almost invariably miscast.
10. Lack of media literacy/education programs that help audience to recognize they need to begin to chose what they see vs. just impulse buy.
Part of our mandate for Gigantic Digital is to reinvigorate the independent film audience and contribute as much as we can to growing that audience by creating pockets of green shoots in thousands of communities that have never been exposed to first-run independent films and expanding that audience day by day.
11. Collapse of US acquisition market requires reduced budgets for filmmakers, and thus resulting in limiting content.
The upside revenue potential for distributors, filmmakers and producers with Gigantic Digital is virtually unlimited. The split is 50/50 of net receipts (after streaming costs) and we’ll pay weekly if that’s what’s desired.
12. Collapse of International sales markets requires reduced budgets for filmmakers, and thus resulting in limiting content.
Gigantic Digital is a global delivery service so that filmmakers can actually release their own films country by country of they so desire.
15. Recession has reduced private equity available for film investment.
With Gigantic Digital, producers can guarantee national US distribution which could make investment much much more appealing.
17. Threat of piracy makes library value of titles unstable, which in turn limits investment in content companies and reduces acquisition prices, which in turn reduces budgets, which in turn limits the options for content -- so everybody loses.
In my opinion this is a non issue. By a huge margin, the core audience for independent film has no interest in pirating content or seeking out pirated content.
18. No new business model for internet exploitation at a level that can justify reasonable film budgets.
Gigantic Digital changes that forever.
19. Lack of community embrace of new creative story expansion models that would facilitate audience aggregation and participation (to seed, build, drive audiences).
See answer to #10.
21. Panic due to the 15 year promise of crystal clear downloads over internet despite the reality that it still has not developed -- allowing the fear to move to a business practice of inactivity.
Our streaming is the highest possible quality given the ticket buyer’s available bandwidth (a non-issue in the very near future) and hardware resources. In any case, we now have multiple generations who have consumed most of their entertainment on a 2 inch by 2 inch screen. Streaming may not be perfect yet but we’ve proven that today’s quality is absolutely acceptable to a paying audience. We’re not talking about studio crap here, we’re talking about films where, for the large majority, content is way more important than packaging.
22. Bootleggers have developed a platform that allows audiences to simply download whatever they want where ever they want whenever they want -- something that the film industry has yet to do.
We’ve done it. (We’ll be adding mobile support in the near future.)
23. Loss of job for newspaper based film critics reduces curatorial oversight which lessens word-of-mouth and want-to-see.
This is being addressed by sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and MRQE. Many more creative solutions to this coming down the pike.
24. Reliance on synopsis style reviewing fails to provide enriching cultural context for film and thus reduces audience satisfaction
See above.
25. Lack of marketing/distribution knowledge by filmmakers limits DIY success.
If you’re on Gigantic Digital, that’s no longer an issue.
28. America has no funding for the arts so filmmakers have to develop material based on pre-existing markets instead forward thinking inspiration.
Not true. The filmmaking/releasing process is so completely democratized now that writers/directors can make a film on a shoestring (provided that what they’re saying is more important to them than special effects, the RED, star-fucking, making millions, etc) and reach their audience with ease.
30. The specialized distributors force exhibitors to program for full week runs, preventing them from developing local community audience or niche programs on off nights.
Gigantic Digital goes a long way to addressing that. Creative marketing and community building takes it the rest of the way.
31. The truly independent exhibitors are not yet developed into a collaborating organization that would allow true independent features to be easily booked nationwide.
Gigantic Digital!
32. There is no independent collection and disbursement agency that could allow DIY distribution to take hold.
Gigantic Digital!
33. Filmmakers still believe that festivals are first and foremost markets and not media launches.
Gigantic Digital! Let’s open each market, festival by festival thereby taking advantage of the media excitement generated by and at the each festival.
34. The ego-driven approach to filmmaking vs. one of true collaboration generally yields lower quality of films and greater dissatisfaction amongst all participants.
The Gigantic Group incorporates and fosters collaborative development, production, post, scoring, distribution, marketing and soundtrack in a supportive, one-for-all, all-for-one environment. But that’s another story.
35. Lack of real role models who represent integrity and commitment to the craft (in order to inspire others).
Again, The Gigantic Group.
36. Corporate hierarchy and access that is driven foremost by privilege (college, connections, class) limiting diversity and new content and approaches.
Again, The gigantic Group.
37. Inability for filmmakers to influence iTunes editors to promote their work.
See answer to #11.
38. Lists like this make the foolish despair.
I hope I’ve eased the pain with my comment.
Hi Ted,
Thank you for your insightful and "inciteful" article. I have proposed via the PGA organizing Co-Production Treaties for the USA. However, inertia is still the word instead of Grease! Will keep plugging away.
Best,
Butch Kaplan
I think the fact that you were able to make a list that broadly addresses so many of the "reasons why" give those who are "unfoolish" a great place to start shaking stuff up. I myself and going to start championing people, legislation, and energies that attempt to remedy #s 10, 22, 28, 29, & 30.
Great post!
Great list and I agree with several of the points made. Things are at a crossroad right now, it will be very interesting to see where this goes.
How will the next generation or even current generation of filmmakers break out of the traditional models.
Great list. First step is to face the truth. But people will always, always need stories. The chaff will drop off. It's been a long time coming.
This is a fantastic list, Ted, and every line is completely on point. There are so many things I’d like to respond with, so many additions I’d like to make to your list, but I’ll keep it as limited as possible to the larger interior issues. It seems that with everything I’ve been reading lately in the same vain has been, as you said, less than forthcoming in solutions, and this is mostly because, as filmmakers, we simply don’t know what’s to come on in this new frontier. As filmmakers, it is our responsibility to develop it for the advantage of the community.
Despite this point, all of these notations across the board that bring up these same ideas also offer up a less than desirable solution: discouragement. But not in the “all is lost” sense, rather, in the higherarchical sense. In one of your first points you mention the number of “specialized films” opening and how it impacts WOM marketing, followed by another point that too many films are distributed to accumulate financial endurance. By reading things like this one can draw the conclusion that the only way to prevent this is to cut back the number of films being made, but in doing that, we run the chance of discouraging people from making films and becoming the actual “elite society” the mainstream media sometimes labels us as. So, discouraging other filmmakers (including many the first time filmmakers with first time teams and very optimistic and unintentionally mislead investors) from making films cannot be an option. It is up to us to somehow communicate with each other, put our heads together, and create a new model, a new operating system.
Many specialty films, as you pointed out, open and mostly remain in only New York and LA; the only possible consequence to that is indeed piracy, I just recently came across bootlegged copies of “The Hurt Locker”, “Julia” and “Lemon Tree” in the streets of Boston.
One thing that we often forget is that the moment we start making specialty films is the moment we leave the very audience we hope to target. A majority of indie films are made with talent from both New York and L.A. in and around the areas. The people who work in these films are a majority of their audience, so they migrate to where the work is.
Our biggest challenge is modifying the culture of our country. Even I find it sometimes difficult to watch a film from my laptop. Yes, there are wonderful options such as iTunes and routing the film through Apple/iTV if you want to keep it in the family, but as we’ve so frustratingly discovered the iTunes editors are anything but accommodating and they, as well as several other internet distributors who shall not be named due to tact, don’t seem like they’ll budge anytime soon. Somehow we have to come up with a way to compete, even going so far as to create our own hardware and software, our own Internet distribution outlet to take films we download from our computer and put them on our television sets. Many of our peers may be willing to sit at their computers and support our work and films, but in order to make back the money we’ve spent, gain the exposure we desire and reach the larger audiences we want, we unfortunately have to accommodate the people we see walking down the streets of Weymouth, Mass., Denver, Colorado., Tallahassee Florida, Providence, Rhode Island., and give them “comfortable” options. This is THE obstacle, in my opinion, to overcome.
“I pay 5, 10, 15 dollars a month, click this button the site, use this cable, or (preferably) wireless box and it shows up on my Television. It’s so simple. Its basically HBO on-demand, right?” That is the reaction we need. (yes, Free would be great, but we have to pragmatists here) Whether that means somehow creating an online service that exclusively caters to indie films or somehow seducing cable companies to carry a library of downloadable content is up for discussion, but we know these things work, and there are a few teeny tiny indie examples, but no big champion for our cause, no big role models as you’ve said, so we have to do this ourselves. It will take time, it will take effort and yes, it will take money, but if we don’t do this, someone else will do it for us and it will not be what we want, and especially not what we need.
Really well done, Ted
The curmudgeon is back. About the above, it is a bit ironic for me - having spent a good part of my life engaged in various attempts to provide production and distribution for so-called "indie/experimental/political" etc (helped set up Coops in 60's, Newsreel, was on Canyon Board of Directors in 70's, ran indie booth for 3 or 4 yrs running at Berlin Fest in early 80's; had tangle with IFP at its fraudulent birth in NYC), etc., to see that in a sense things did come to bloom - more having to do with DV than organizing - and now indeed the means exists. Ah, but it in a way exists too much: DV and DVDs and the net has driven the costs down so much almost anyone who wants can try. Which is good. And bad: there's tons and tons of stuff, most of it proportionally as ever - mostly junk. And it is all vying to be seen, more than anyone could hope to cope with - be it festivals drowning in submissions, or TV cable, net or whatever, now awash in too much to keep track of. So indeed the media has been democratized. So now, reflected in the media world, we get a mirror of the larger world: a thin strata of plutocrats running the main show, with limited opt ins for outsiders, and then a thicker strata of wanna be's, and then the hoi polloi, the rabble (us), the big majority, eking by trying to stay alive. I frankly don't anticipate much change. What will have to change is expectations, or as I put it in my case, Films for N(o)One. I have no delusions my work will be seen, no matter what efforts I put to it (or not); and if seen its almost always going to be in a wrong/bad context: as a postage stamp on the net, a resolution poor video screen, a festival where most are partying and seeking the next buzzhit etc. That's the present reality. I do expect a lot of fests to bite the dust for fiscal reasons in the next year or two, and I suppose for the same reason there'll be a severe winnowing out of would-be filmmakers once they see no pot of gold looms down the rainbow, and making a living is not in the cards.
Meantime Ted can you contact me about something, use the email on www.jon-jost.com
jon jost
www.jonjost.wordpress.com
Is anyone else starting to think that this internet revolution for films is still a long way off? I'm beginning to think that there are three things at work here. One is a reaction to the loss of theatrical distributors. Two is a reaction to piracy, which is offering a convenience that we are a long, long way from getting legitimately. And three, it's our fear that we might be a bunch of luddites who miss the train of progress because we came of age in a different era.
I remember when I was in film school back in the 80's when every safely pronounced that film was dead because video was taking over. That's just starting to happen now, nearly 30 years later.
I think you covered it, Ted! #34 made me chuckle. I absolutely despise the auteur theory. Time and again, I see that real talent is not threatened by collaboration, but enthused by it.
great list
This is an incredibly valuable list, one that can hopefully help us to think through some of the problems that are complicating independent cinema right now. As someone who lives outside of a metropolitan area (much less NYC or LA), my closest contact with most art house films is through IFC On Demand. Word of mouth is also huge. If our local art house books an indie film I like, it's usually gone within a week, making it impossible for buzz to develop.
Like you, I'd like to see more creative exploitation of the new models that are available. In fact, with regard to item #11, "Collapse of US acquisition market requires reduced budgets for filmmakers, and thus resulting in limiting content," I'm tempted to say that the opposite is true as well. Bigger budgets also result in limiting content. If you're going to pony up $150 million for a film, there'd better be some explosions in it. So, the lower budgets (within reason, obviously) can also create opportunities.
I start to despaire, and then I remind myself of this: if I could download whatever film I wanted, when I wanted, no matter how recent or how obscure, for about $5 a pop, I'd do it every single night. And I believe about a billion other people would to. One day, once the bottom has fallen out altogether, there will be a coalescence of interests. We'll get together and create an "iTunes" for a new (and it won't be iTunes by the way). It will make piracy irrelevant. It will bring dollars to the pockets of content creators (i.e., filmmakers). The question that remains is when. And how many will be killed off until we get there.
It's amazing how much dust this is kicking up and how many filmmakers are taking offense.. It is almost as if you are to be indicted for the 38 reasons when you have just laid them out for discussion. Every item on the list is valid and there are options for many of them, but in this dynamic period of economic and technological history, everyone would do well to constantly reassess options when it involves independent filmmaking. Whatever obstacle we face will always be there and forever changing. I think the key is to try and stay informed and maintain a position in relation to the shifting sands of the market.
38 is my favorite!
I think it should be verse in the TFF Indie Film Bible
Hope 211:38 - "Lists like this make the foolish despair."
If I were to pick these apart, I would say that I don't agree with 2 or 3 and they seem to be antithetical to 11. If you want more distributors, I would assume that you need more films to supply them. Anyway, I think that, from the audience's point of view, we have too little choice, not too much, so I think we can always use more film options.
Plus, number 9 doesn't get enough attention. This is a major problem.
How about the need to have stars in films? Is that part of number 9?
Pango,
I'd have to say that in order for me to wholeheartedly agree with your view that there are not enough films, I would have to go into it thinking you mean that there are not enough "quality" films. There are literally hundreds of indie films made each year that are sub-par, believe me, I see them all the time. The writing isn't great, the sound is unforgivable, the plot is less than desirable, maybe they didn't use the right lenses; all of these things factor into my definition of "quality". That is not to say these filmmakers didn't make a valiant and honest effort in their endeavors, they just fell short of the bar for several reasons.
I do agree with you that from an audience perspective that we have little choice in quality, especially in connection with accessibility to these quality films. A few months ago, Ted pointed out that because there are so many indie films (mostly of poor quality) out there, the pool is diluted. I truly believe this to be the case. Seeing the amount of poor quality films will never truly die out (i believe they're made in proportion to good quality films every year) we have to be persistent in our efforts to make sure quality films are seen, and a great way to do that is to support; to be highly vocal about the films our peers are making that are "worthy" of such promotion and interest.
Some great points in this article. Though I am an independent film director, I have no budget and 'named' cast because it's completely unrealistic and I just started last year. But I am quickly learning about the industry and its weaknesses as it pertains to supporting the up and coming. As with all things, money is really at the crux of almost all of the problems, albeit from a production or distributing, or acting side. I finished my short film, No Outlet and you can see it at: http://jepabst.blogspot.com/2009/04/no-outlet-shorcut-link.html if you are interested. Otherwise, thanks for this article; it's important to call these issues out so we can dialogue about them wand what might be done to resolve some of them.
I mean that there isn't enough choice at the movie theaters, especially outside of NY. Here on Long Island, I have the choice of about 8 films at any given time, all playing at all the multiplexes around here. It's all studio films, with an occasional Focus, or Fox Searchlight. I understand the arguments that Mark Gill and everyone make about there being too many films, but it just does not jibe with my experience as someone who wants to see movies. I find the Mark Gill argument to be something like McDonalds saying that they want to sell more burgers by Wendy's making less burgers.
There's a lot on DVD and the internet, but I still can't find Mina Tannenbaum with English subtitles anywhere. WTF?
All of you guys hoping one day be able to survive distributing your work via internet outlets have got to be on another planet!! It wont exist for indie's or anyone else, as long as people can EASILY watch whatever they want, anytime they want for free. Do a google search for "Parasomnia movie watch free". That's the Indie film we just completed with Director William Malone in october of 2008. It's beautiful, unique, genre, homage to Polish surrealist zdzislaw Beksinski. We've sold it to only 5 countries so far, and then last week learned from Itialian buyers that you could watch or film, (up until this weekend) online in HD FOR FREE!!! And You don't even have to sign up for anything or pay for anything! In english or portugese, Thanks to a theift in a lab in one of those countries we've sold it to. Do you guys not get that? You no longer have to use bit-torrent or search for unauthorised copies. Its now all out there in the open. There are now literally hundreds of websites linking to files they uploaded to third party servers!! This is how they are getting around the copyright laws, and now they are getting a hold of films before they even have distributors! Its out of control!! The biggest threat to indie films is 100% PIRACY. Say goodbye to Art and hello to studio widgets! because Its death for the indie, as pretty soon the only people who will be able to make films are the big studio's, as they are the only ones with the ability to absorb the financal loss due to piracy and survive. But soon the only money they'll be able to make is on first run theatricals. There is no money in online distribution, and thats why quailty streaming doesn't exist.. I just did a search for "watch movies free". you should try it. The very first result (quickflicksnow.com )and I can watch whatever I want. try it and see for your selves!
like tom paine said in common sense ... it was ridiculous for an island to rule a continent.
Number 35. goes a long way to explaining the need for/prevelance of Number 34.
Nina Paley is working on a solution with her film Sita Sings the Blues.
Give the film away.
Make it available on every torrent site and from your own servers. Spread the film far and wide. I talked with her on the phone about a week ago. "Obscurity is your enemy.", she said.
From all those viewers of your free content (if your movie is good), you will get fans and some of these fans will buy your products...your special edition DVDs, your t-shirts, etc. Because your fans want you to succeed.
The internet has opened the potential to a market of hundreds of millions of people. If 1% of those see your movie and if your movie is good, 5% of your viewers become your fan base, you are looking at a sustainable model.
Even though her film is available for free on the internet, she is still getting a limited theatrical release AND a limited international release. People still want to see their favorite films on a big screen. People still want to take their friends and lovers to movies they love and cherish (think of all the films that have been re-issued with theatrical releases).
Believe me I'm still having a hard time with this. Our $2 million film (6 years in the making) is nearing completion and thinking about the above model of giving it away still makes me a little nauseous.
Listening to distributors offering less money than our guaranteed return (we have thousands of fans who are chomping at the bit to see the movie) makes me even more ill.
These are very troubling facts. It`s true that it`s a tough time for independent films. Most of the people prefer to see a film for it`s action, visual effects, etc.. the bottom line for them is to zoom-out (not to think), to get out of their world. People don`t want to see films that will make them think. I am not speaking of everyone of course. It`s just that a lot of people consider watching films as an entertainment, getting out of the reality and those 'commercial' films are exactly what they want to see. It is quite unfortunate and dangerous at the same time, because in my opinion the lack of knowledge along with bad television and bad cinema, leads to ignorance. Independent film has and will have its audience no matter what, the question is will the audience grow. I think we should definitely promote independent films among our friends, acquaintances etc. It`s a great idea! It`s a first step.
Strange Frame; Lets pretend for a second that 1.2 Million dollars of the two million you just spent creating your Art, came from 2nd mortgages that you and your best friend took out on your homes to create your art. And the rest is in defferment commitments you made doing through out the production (this is what Director William Malone did, out of a desire for creative freedom, after being under the thumbs of the studio system, and networks for so long) So now you and your friends homes are dependant on your making a return on all your hard work. Would you then distribute your film for free online, and hope that the film generates enough DVD buying fans to make back the TWO MILLION DOLLARS you and your friends need to keep your homes, plus pay any deferrments your may have aquired???
Nina made a cartoon! Which can be done for the measly price of a computer and software! Try making back 1.5 to 5 million giving away your work for free. Try telling an investor you want to make a film and give it away online for free, then ask him if he'll invest a couple hundred thousand to a million of his money in it??? ROFL!!! Try asking a friend to help you for deferred payment, then tell him your going to give his work away for free online! Or get a recognizable name actor, to be in your film for half up front and half on the back end, and then tell them you are going to give away his work for free online! LOL!!!!! Nina didn't have these obstacles because she made a CARTOON! Her character's didn't have agents, or bills to pay.
If the path Nina is going is our only solution to piracy eating away our returns, and killing our industry, then the cost of making films will have to come down TREMENDOUSLY!!!! To about 30 to 50 thousand dollars. Actors, Directors, Writers, Producers, Composers and VFX houses, will have to lower there fee to pennies. In order for us to ba able to make a living create our Art.
This may work for micro-budget indie's, but I don't see how its possible for the thousands of low to mid-budget indie's...
I do wish you the best of luck with your film!!!
That's a great list Ted and I appreciate that you took the time to create it - each one is a topic for discussion in itself.
I think that many problems find their origins in piracy. If you can't protect the work you've created then that takes the money out of the system. The studios have no incentive to find a technical solution fast because although they're losing money they have enough to weather the storm while all the smaller guys go bust.
But I'd like to be a little provocative and say that I think that the tax support for movies is wrong too and especially damaging to indies and future DIY models.
Why? Because it artificially inflates labor costs above the "real" market. That means that without tax-support we're forced to finance projects at a level that's tough to pay back because audiences don't want to spend that sort of money to watch a movie.
If we took the tax money out of the system then wages and other costs would be lower and the process of deciding which films got made would be far more democratic - voted for by the paying audience. Not by a State or country film czar/bureaucrat curating what she/he thinks we ought to watch. The result is often tax money pissed away on well-intentioned but dreary socially-aware movies the public (unaware their tax dollars paid for the movie) doesn't want to watch.
With tax money out of the system it levels the playing field and the DIY-system is less disadvantaged.
Post a Comment