Kevin Smith launches Indie distribution

[Eren Ozkural]

I can imagine Smodcast Pictures doing well if Kevin Smith concentrates on one film at a time, essentially bringing the filmaker into the podcasts, heavily publicising it for a year and arranging Q&A's where he will be present as well.

I'm predicting that the 1st independent movie to be brought under the Smodcast Films banner will be from his friend/ indie documentary maker Malcolm Ingram who already has a show on the Smodcast network...where it would branch out after that who knows...

 

[Mike P.]

I can imagine Smodcast Pictures doing well if Kevin Smith concentrates on one film at a time, essentially bringing the filmaker into the podcasts, heavily publicising it for a year and arranging Q&A's where he will be present as well.

I'm predicting that the 1st independent movie to be brought under the Smodcast Films banner will be from his friend/ indie documentary maker Malcolm Ingram who already has a show on the Smodcast network...where it would branch out after that who knows...

Completely agree with that, but I don't see the feasibility of doing only one picture for an entire year... UNLESS, maybe, he brought together two or three movies and all three were lumped together at each screening or venue... Although that seems difficult as well because of duration.

As for who goes first, I was under the impression that he was gonna be bringing people up from the unknowns, rather than bringing them across from the smodcast...

 

[Eren Ozkural]

Completely agree with that, but I don't see the feasibility of doing only one picture for an entire year... UNLESS, maybe, he brought together two or three movies and all three were lumped together at each screening or venue... Although that seems difficult as well because of duration.

As for who goes first, I was under the impression that he was gonna be bringing people up from the unknowns, rather than bringing them across from the smodcast...

That's a fantastic idea actually. If you're concentrating on one location at a time why not spread the costs across a number of films?

I would venture to say that showing multiple films across a 6-7 hour stretch would be how he'd do it. I know general audiences wouldn't want to watch more than one movie a day but then again general audiences won't pay $60-100 for a film either.

I got the impression that Smith would be helping total unknowns as well but I can't imagine he'd pass up the opportunity to help a dear friend in the process.

Speaking of Ingram, has anyone here seen his documentary "Small Town Gay Bar"? apparently parts of it have inspired Red State.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

UNLESS, maybe, he brought together two or three movies and all three were lumped together at each screening or venue...

Could work if one film is by a new filmmaker and the second by someone more established (like Kevin himself). Kind of like the opening acts at a music concert.

 

[Eren Ozkural]

Could work if one film is by a new filmmaker and the second by someone more established (like Kevin himself). Kind of like the opening acts at a music concert.

Another good idea...shit maybe us indies should get in on this. We just need someone like Kevin

 

[Steven Parker]

That's a fantastic idea actually. If you're concentrating on one location at a time why not spread the costs across a number of films?

This is not a new idea. There was a series of indie films made about 10 years ago - 'Tadpole' 'Personal Velocity' 'Pieces of April' were among them - and the initial investment was spread out over 10 little miniDV features, figuring if one of them hit the ROI was covered. If more of them hit, a tidy profit could be made. Pretty genius for the time, and worked out very well for the producers.

Kudos to Mr. Kevin Smith for fighting the beast that is the studio system. Four-walling is hard work and I wish him the best of luck.

A picture I shot a couple years ago 'Feed The Fish' has been successfully four-walling in and around Wisconsin for several months now. I did not envy my producer's life during that time - he drove back and forth across the upper midwest for months, with a small HD projector and Blu-Ray player ("Just in case!") and a box of Blu-Rays in his trunk, meeting theatre managers and sitting on small local incentive panels, all in an effort to keep that film in front of an audience.

'Feed The Fish' opens on VOD and DVD tomorrow, January 25. Stars Tony Shalhoub and Barry Corbin, shot on Red and Winner of Best Cinematography at the 2010 Woods Hole Film Festival.

If we can do it, I know Kevin can!

 

[Eren Ozkural]

If there's someone with Smith's fanbase and dedication to four wall one of my films for me that's fine by me

 

[Eren Ozkural]

On a side note it's really interesting (and in my opinion good) that quite a few self/online distribution threads have popped up and resurfaced since the Red State Sundance screening.

Power to the people

 

[Chris Luker]

By the way, I did buy your book. I'm about 3/4th through it. It's definitely a good read. I've suggested it to a few people I know trying to get started in the film business.

I bought the book too. Finished it in a week.
First thing I thought of with Kevin's announcement was will he distribute Kisses and Caroms...

 

[VinceRocca]

once most theaters move to digital, distribution will be a cakewalk

They said that about TV.
Once this Television thing takes off we'll have no problem distributing our stuff.
Then Video
Once these players take off we'll have no problem distributing our stuff.
Then PPV
Once these Cable companies get onboard we'll have no problem distributing our stuff.
Then the internet
Once Video Streaming takes off we'll have no problem distributing our stuff.
BUT WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM!

By the way, I did buy your book. I'm about 3/4th through it. It's definitely a good read.

You mean my indie filmmaking book, Rebel Without A Deal, which has been compared to Rebel Without A Crew? I'd love to hear your final thoughts on the books thread and if they're glowing then post them to Amazon.

I bought the book too. Finished it in a week.

Also, love to hear your final thoughts on the books thread.

First thing I thought of with Kevin's announcement was will he distribute Kisses and Caroms...

Your post to Kevin's eyes. That would be awesome.

 

[VinceRocca]

I'm predicting that the 1st independent movie to be brought under the Smodcast Films banner will be from his friend/ indie documentary maker Malcolm Ingram who already has a show on the Smodcast network...where it would branch out after that who knows...

I thought this too. It makes sense. Malcolm is an indie and a friend.

 

[VinceRocca]

Here's a video of Kevin Smith talking about distribution shot in the theater right after the Red State Sundance screening.

 

[Anthony Survant]

They said that about TV.
Once this Television thing takes off we'll have no problem distributing our stuff.
Then Video
Once these players take off we'll have no problem distributing our stuff.
Then PPV
Once these Cable companies get onboard we'll have no problem distributing our stuff.
Then the internet
Once Video Streaming takes off we'll have no problem distributing our stuff.
BUT WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM!

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the problem isn't distribution anymore exactly... It's getting peoples attention. I mean, I can theoretically have the best movie of all time. Upload it to YouTube or a different video site... Even torrents. It's "distributed" to ANYONE who wants to see it.

However, distributing it in a manner that ensures it's available to everyone is not the same as advertising it to where it's well known or selling it.

Maybe my understanding of "distributing" it should be changed to "making a profit" off of it?

 

[VinceRocca]

You are correct. You can just upload to the internet and get distribution. You can also get a movie on TV through public access. But how will these free viewings pay back the budget and fund the next?

Back in the days of film, before TV, Indie creatives I'm sure felt TV would make it easier for them to profit off their materiel. For many Vaudeville acts this was the case, but Studios and BIG business quickly took over TV and blocked the little guy in favor of their shows with their actors to plug their products.

Video players became the next frontier for creatives to turn a profit, some smaller distribs like Vestron, Carolco, and Corman managed to bank on this direct to video world, but soon the BIG boys took it over and started flooding walls with a 100 copies of a new release. They bought up duplication companies and made it too expensive for a little guy to break in.

DVD made it cheeper, but who controlled the advertising?

Then came PPV, with nearly no delivery costs this seemed to be the place for profit for indies, but the VOD systems have become flooded with studio product. Studios own the systems and get top ranks. Indies who are wise enough to figure out how to get their movies listed still battle getting art and trailers up to compete with the top ranked studio flicks.

Ahh, the internet... It's a free place for indies to distribute their products. But is it? Who owns and controls IMDb, YouTube, MySpace, Funny or Die? Go and try to get your indie listed in iTunes for sale at $4.99. See if youtube will give you a producers account to sell your 2hr indie.

So we still have a problem, lots of problems. In order to get paid we need to get distributed, in order to distribute we need a platform, a market, an advertising budget, etc. However that platform, & market is still owned by the BIG boys.

As to the comment on digital distribution and "once theaters are changed over it will be a cake walk."
Who owns the theaters? Who paid for the digital projectors?

When a theater owner has 5 screens and 5 new movies with advertising budgets debuting this week why would they slot my indie with no ad budget? it's too risky for them.

As indies we face the same problems we have in the past, finding our market and making a profit off them.

Okay, rant over.. I've gone on too long and have probably lost peeps anyway.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Go Kevin Smith! Drive the bastards back into the sea! Arghhh! (through dagger clenched teeth)

 

[Rob Ruffo]

This completely ignores the peril of piracy. A distribution through major studios is desirable because they can release to many screens at once, thereby making sure costs are recovered in the first week. The longer you wait after finishing a project, the greater the chances of it finding its way to the internet for 'free' downloads.

The biggest threat for small indie filmmakers is not competing with big-budget films and their huge marketing budgets, it is making sure they can recover the money that went into making the film before it is available on the internet.

I wish there was something Red or any other company could do to kill piracy, but it is a complex problem that requires both technical and legislative amendments.

100% agree - and we need legislation and education - stealing is stealing - and in an information economy if everyone feels it's OK to steal information content, then you have no economy at all.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

You are correct. You can just upload to the internet and get distribution. You can also get a movie on TV through public access. But how will these free viewings pay back the budget and fund the next?

Back in the days of film, before TV, Indie creatives I'm sure felt TV would make it easier for them to profit off their materiel. For many Vaudeville acts this was the case, but Studios and BIG business quickly took over TV and blocked the little guy in favor of their shows with their actors to plug their products.

Video players became the next frontier for creatives to turn a profit, some smaller distribs like Vestron, Carolco, and Corman managed to bank on this direct to video world, but soon the BIG boys took it over and started flooding walls with a 100 copies of a new release. They bought up duplication companies and made it too expensive for a little guy to break in.

DVD made it cheeper, but who controlled the advertising?

Then came PPV, with nearly no delivery costs this seemed to be the place for profit for indies, but the VOD systems have become flooded with studio product. Studios own the systems and get top ranks. Indies who are wise enough to figure out how to get their movies listed still battle getting art and trailers up to compete with the top ranked studio flicks.

Ahh, the internet... It's a free place for indies to distribute their products. But is it? Who owns and controls IMDb, YouTube, MySpace, Funny or Die? Go and try to get your indie listed in iTunes for sale at $4.99. See if youtube will give you a producers account to sell your 2hr indie.

So we still have a problem, lots of problems. In order to get paid we need to get distributed, in order to distribute we need a platform, a market, an advertising budget, etc. However that platform, & market is still owned by the BIG boys.

As to the comment on digital distribution and "once theaters are changed over it will be a cake walk."
Who owns the theaters? Who paid for the digital projectors?

When a theater owner has 5 screens and 5 new movies with advertising budgets debuting this week why would they slot my indie with no ad budget? it's too risky for them.

As indies we face the same problems we have in the past, finding our market and making a profit off them.

Okay, rant over.. I've gone on too long and have probably lost peeps anyway.

I find how you vilify these "Big Boys" as being your necessary enemy a bit odd. You could make other choices, such as seeing them as potential partners. People have made it in Hollywood by hustling, it's not some modern day royalty you have to be born into - nepotism helps but it's not the only way, nor even the most common. Yes it takes persistence, but the gatekeepers get something like 1000 calls a day, how could they possibly take them all? Is that your issue?

And the idea that "Anyone can make a movie" is a nonsense idea that people have been trying to sell since hi-8 video cameras hit the market.

Lots of great and even highly controversial films have been made and distributed through the System, and the people who made them have become wealthy in the process. I fail to understand what's wrong with that.

 

[Mike P.]

I don't think piracy is as much of a problem as people make it out to be. I'd bet that at least half the people pirating probably wouldn't pay to see the movie anyway. Similarly, look at Avatar, it was pirated pretty damn quickly (faster than most) and yet it still made a boatload of money consistently for weeks.

I also think that this links into Smith's/Weinstien's whole mentality that opening weekends are bought. If a movie makes $40mil the first weekend and then only 5mil the second weekend, well, piracy or not, the word got out that the movie isn't worth seeing (especially for $12.50 a ticket.) Worse still, as Smith mentioned, the movie under the current model needs to recoupe five times what it cost to make...I don't know the numbers, but there is no way in hell piracy is reducing sales by 80%... Granted, even losing 5% (or 0.00005%) of sales because of piracy isn't fair, I still can't help but think the people who complain most about piracy are the ones making crappy movies.

So if Smith takes his show on the road like he plans, opens in 1000 theatres like he plans, he's easily going to make 4mil back. After all, his roadshow to raise 2.5mil for the 1000 prints is, essentially, his marketing campaign... the difference being that he is actually hoping to get paid ~2.5mil for the marketing/advertising, rather than spending 20mil on marketing and advertising.

Moreover, as VOD catches on (specifically NetFlix... I mean, it's only $8/mth) people won't see the need to pirate movies that they wouldn't have paid to see, since it would be included in their VOD service (and available at the click of button).

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I don't think piracy is as much of a problem as people make it out to be. I'd bet that at least half the people pirating probably wouldn't pay to see the movie anyway. Similarly, look at Avatar, it was pirated pretty damn quickly (faster than most) and yet it still made a boatload of money consistently for weeks.

I also think that this links into Smith's/Weinstien's whole mentality that opening weekends are bought. If a movie makes $40mil the first weekend and then only 5mil the second weekend, well, piracy or not, the word got out that the movie isn't worth seeing (especially for $12.50 a ticket.) Worse still, as Smith mentioned, the movie under the current model needs to recoupe five times what it cost to make...I don't know the numbers, but there is no way in hell piracy is reducing sales by 80%... Granted, even losing 5% (or 0.00005%) of sales because of piracy isn't fair, I still can't help but think the people who complain most about piracy are the ones making crappy movies.

So if Smith takes his show on the road like he plans, opens in 1000 theatres like he plans, he's easily going to make 4mil back. After all, his roadshow to raise 2.5mil for the 1000 prints is, essentially, his marketing campaign... the difference being that he is actually hoping to get paid ~2.5mil for the marketing/advertising, rather than spending 20mil on marketing and advertising.

Moreover, as VOD catches on (specifically NetFlix... I mean, it's only $8/mth) people won't see the need to pirate movies that they wouldn't have paid to see, since it would be included in their VOD service (and available at the click of button).

Mike P is on the money here IMHO. Smith will get a ton of free, local publicity with his traveling circus. This film will do just fine and the investors will actually get checks instead of silly reports from the studios showing the film is still -$10M. Smith's movies are not my cup of tea - but I totally respect his moves on this project. I think he will do better than most people think with this plan.

 

[Chip G]

Mike P is on the money here IMHO. Smith will get a ton of free, local publicity with his traveling circus. This film will do just fine and the investors will actually get checks instead of silly reports from the studios showing the film is still -$10M. Smith's movies are not my cup of tea - but I totally respect his moves on this project. I think he will do better than most people think with this plan.

I think your right about this to a point, I'll bet Kevin recoupes $2M from NY, Austin & Chicago (3 cities) from selling $75-$100 movie/Q&A tickets alone. His biz model is financial suicide tho, who raises $2.5M for film prints for 1,000 theaters and zero money for advertising (don't try to tell me Twitter will drive this)? He should make 300 film prints and spend the rest on advertsining honing his biz model while he has a chance before he gets his ass kicked, if I were one of the investors that funded this movie Kevin would be wearing a shock collar. Artist and biz never seem to work out very well if you know what I mean.