How to make money from internet distribution of movies?

[Yannick Hagman]

The final version wasn't, but the version he SOLD TO A MAJOR STUDIO was.

So why are you questioning his integrity?

The facts are plainly clear.

They aren't. It's what he claims. Anyone can claim a low figure in order to win sympathy and to market his film. It was shot on 16mm, not dv. If you actually shot film, you know about what it costs. And without spending another 7'000$ on shipping costs nobody in hollywood would have seen it. Just my few cents.

 

[mikeburton]

Not to mention that the consumer gets to retain his or her integrity and support the artists.

Wow, I love this forum. We start a convo on a subject, and BAMM, a guy from Vuze shows up! I love Vuze. A lot of us have our clips up there now, and I use it as my BT client.

Mike, what do you think about the model I suggested? Sell your Bluray for $3 online with a super-fast download and simply count on volume? To me, when I want to DL an 8GB Bluray movie, I would easily be willing to kick out $3 bucks to get it at 2MB/s rather than dealing with all the hassle of P2P.

Tom,

Sorry for the late response, comcast was down all weekend.
In regards to the $3 Blu-Ray concept, I just don't think the studios are going to go for it. Not yet at least. Its a good idea from a consumer level but this concept completely negates their DVD market. I believe you will see a price drop in content (hollywood films) but it won't happen anytime real soon. Hollywood is slow to act and adapt and for the most part, they don't have to. Don't be fooled, they are still making money but the goal is to make more, not less. The other issue is that the majority of consumers don't want to watch a full movie on our PC's. Most of us have invested in our big screen TV's and aren't about to attempt that viewing environment from the comfort (or lack there of) our office chair. And please don't make a statement for Apple TV! When you are asking me to pay full premium for less resolution and more hassle I just don't buy it. Literally! People also like to have physical copies of their media, still. There is something about going to Target that excites people that i will never fully understand but nevertheless, that still exists.
Faster downloads are preferable but that won't be an issue in the near future by the time 8Gig files are the "norm" to download and view.
IMO, until this issue is worked out by the majors there will be a lot of question marks in the distribution of online media. There isn't an easy way which satisfies both sides of the coin right now which is potentially bad for both the consumers and the major studios. And, if the studios can't figure out a solid plan to make money online how is the independent supposed to survive off the two films a year they produce? Not gonna happen in most scenarios. The online media arenas are great places to market/advertise yourself as a filmmaker trying to "get noticed" but don't expect to get rich just yet.
Can you make money utilizing the online resource sites that you have at your disposal? Yes...know your marketplace, make a GREAT movie (or Webseries), and most importantly, don't quit your day job!

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

all the hassle of P2P.

The hassle doesn't come from P2P itself, but from the general speed of the users that are downloading a particular torrent.

I'm sometimes getting 10-11 MB\sec. downloads. That makes ~5 min. for a DVD5 and ~10 min. for a DVD9.

And speed will get better, not worse.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

They aren't. It's what he claims. Anyone can claim a low figure in order to win sympathy and to market his film. It was shot on 16mm, not dv. If you actually shot film, you know about what it costs. And without spending another 7'000$ on shipping costs nobody in hollywood would have seen it. Just my few cents.

it was a tape which robert newman (icm) saw...
actually this tape was supossed to be the master for a vhs/dvd release...

he did get in contact with several distributors first (miraMEX etc.) and did an agreement about 20 000 dollars for his movie, which fell through.
naturally he tried to sell it to miraMAX before but was ingnored.
After robert newman from icm saw his movie...miraMAX started to show interest because robert newman knew the right people.

And it was luck that one of his relatives knew this robert newman...

if he would never meet robert newman, el mariachi would have been an el cheapo action flick in videostores.

Robert newman started the buzz.

(---based on robert rodrigiguez diary of the production, rebel without a crew)


-----------------------------------------------
and it was shot for under 10k i think....simply the footage and lab costs...
rest was borrowed...and or for free
he had an 2:1 shooting ratio...
after selling his movie to columbia pictures its normal that the distributer pays the rest...

isnt this what we are talking all the time?
get the movie done...and let the distributer pay the filmout?

 

[jpp]

For the dreamers here, a $3000 film (or so they claim!) called Take Out is currently in distribution, and seems to be doing pretty well. It's also a good example of something which is becoming more and more common, and which is a hopeful sign: a film which gets theatrical distribution despite the fact that it wasn't a great favorite with festival program directors and the usual suspects.

Naturally, $3000 wouldn't include a film print or "deliverables", but the $3000 figure is a credible shooting figure, for what they did and outputting a DV tape from someone's FCP setup.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/nyregion/05takeout.html

 

[Yannick Hagman]

isnt this what we are talking all the time?
get the movie done...and let the distributer pay the filmout?

For sure. But I guess nowadays it won't work that way anymore, it would be interesting to hear how much he did earn on that deal. That would be more substantial than saying this did cost so much and it turned over this figure.

A distributor would say: well sure I can remaster it, but then I only can offer you that price for your flick. You give away a better negotiating position. Unfortunately many selling agents won't even look at it if you don't fullfill those requirements. Maybe Lewis can chime in here. I'm sure he can tell us all what the expected requirements are today.

 

[amrrahmy]

take out is reality, not a film.
u probably seen birthdays and weddings that were better filmed.

and sometimes they forget to mention crew costs, post cost, pre-porduction cost, equipment cost, permits, anything on digital medium would cost nothing if ur including nothing of the production cost. they just say the movie only costs the dv cam cost cuz u dont use expensive film, that's not all the production cost.

 

[jpp]

take out is reality, not a film.
u probably seen birthdays and weddings that were better filmed.

and sometimes they forget to mention crew costs, post cost, pre-porduction cost, equipment cost, permits, anything on digital medium would cost nothing if ur including nothing of the production cost. they just say the movie only costs the dv cam cost cuz u dont use expensive film, that's not all the production cost.

"Take Out" is not "reality". It's a fiction film. The main character is an actor, though some of the other parts involve "real" people playing themselves, and it was shot on "real" locations.

When no one gets paid, all or most the equipment is owned by the filmmakers or obtained for nothing (both directors were students), there's little or no lighting, and there's no insurance or permits, your main expenses will be food and transportation.

Many, many films have been made in exactly this way and for less than $3000. You yourself assert that birthday parties and weddings look better than this film. What does that tell you?

OTOH, how many birthday parties get theatrical releases?

 

[amrrahmy]

reality is a method of filming. it doesn't mean is wasn't staged.

all or most the equipment is owned by the filmmakers

ahh, so when studios make movies with thousands of dollars worth of equipment, the movie costs nothing because they didnt buy the equipment specifically for that movie, and shot the movie in locations they own, and all the sets and lighting equipment were already owned before the movie was made.
yeah, that's accurate. how about actors that were still under contracts with the studio.
that would make studio films cost nothing, right?

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

For sure. But I guess nowadays it won't work that way anymore, it would be interesting to hear how much he did earn on that deal. That would be more substantial than saying this did cost so much and it turned over this figure.

A distributor would say: well sure I can remaster it, but then I only can offer you that price for your flick. You give away a better negotiating position. Unfortunately many selling agents won't even look at it if you don't fullfill those requirements. Maybe Lewis can chime in here. I'm sure he can tell us all what the expected requirements are today.

100 000 for el mariachi + 50 % of the dvd sales (sold over 2 million copies)
then 2 times 300 000 for the next scripts....they had the option to buy it for 300 000.

next project as director was roadracer (TV) or something like that where he did get 40000 dollar...shooting was done in 7-10 days.

based on his diaries.

-----------
but i agree, nowadays never this way...because its nothing special anymore to DO a 90 min. feature
with dv/dvcpro HD....hence no marketing possibility to throw in....i mean based on the budget.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

Wow, that's a very good deal, if it's accurate. Of course you won't get even profit points nowadays. There are people who spend 300'000$ on horrorflicks and never make their money back, cause they can't sell 'em.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Wow, that's a very good deal, if it's accurate. Of course you won't get even profit points nowadays. There are people who spend 300'000$ on horrorflicks and never make their money back, cause they can't sell 'em.

eli roth sold his 1st movie cabin fever for 3 million, made it for 1 million, and it grossed more then 100 million.

good movie,right time, right place is the key

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

but who knows the truth

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

thi is a funny page if you interested in that kind of things...

most profit, biggest loss etc.
dvd/pay tv is not included in the numbers

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php

 

[amrrahmy]

triple to 9000, interesting assumption
so if the same movie was a feature film and used cine lens, how much would u add.
how much would u add for the lighting,
how much would u add for high quality sound recording,
how much would u add for a good script,
how much would u add for b-list actors,
how much would a post production computer cost,
how much would u add for the crew?

 

[Gary Ploj]

10K units in 2/weeks...Wow...!!!

10K units in 2/weeks...Wow...!!!

Maybe from companies like RED making money outside established distribution networks.

The movie "One Six Right" comes to mind. That guy sold 20,000+ copies direct to consumers in advance of the release. He had grossed $400k+ before shipping a unit. There are many other niched titles no one here has ever heard of that made filmmakers money.

Here's another example in book form:
http://gettingreal.37signals.com/toc.php

The book is free on the Internet to read. You can pay for a PDF or Printed version. They've sold many thousands of copies. Who would buy such a thing? People who wanted a hard copy to read on the subway, give to their friends or employees or just support the concept of giving the book away by buying.

In the music business there are many bands that have seen their live gigs become very popular because their music got passed around for free. That doesn't help the Record Label much. A lot of hot new bands aren't signing recording contracts like they used to. They don't need the label's help.

The conventional advice to work for free, be GREAT and eventually get hired in Hollywood isn't a particularly great strategy but that's about the only advice you'll get from your local film school.


I think there are models out there that will end up working but every business is a tough business.

Just wanted to add to this story. I was interested and curious how he did it.

Sony got involded by supplying a road tour in 4K with his film. He shot with Sony CineAlta HDW-F900 and HDW-F950 cameras. He was a guest speaker at 2007 NAB Sony's Cinealta presentation. Quite interesting man speaking with such passion of his project and shooting in HD especially with Sony's cameras. Hint Hint...!!!
Gees, I wondered why he would be a guest speaker!

Here are some links to his site and stories. If anyone is interested. Enjoy.

http://www.onesixright.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Six_Right

http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/terwilliger/


Haven't seen the entire film...but would love to see either at home; no justice there only 50" screen or on the big screen - 4K would be wonderful. But don't have one of those yet. Ha Ha...!!!

I give kudos to him for doing it and making it a success from selling 10K independently copies in two weeks from a unknown guy. Simply amazing!!!

We should learn & adapt to his model and hopefully we can do the same but with the RED ONE camera in true 4K fashion. That would be amazing.

Cheers to him...

 

[Yannick Hagman]

Wanna see Deep Throat

Okay, unfortunately budget and worldwide gross doesn't say anything. Would be great if one could keep his rights like on indieflix.com and reach a broader public.

And what did cost 10'000'000 on the brown bunny?

 

[jpp]

The movie "One Six Right" comes to mind. That guy sold 20,000+ copies direct to consumers in advance of the release. He had grossed $400k+ before shipping a unit. There are many other niched titles no one here has ever heard of that made filmmakers money.

From what I've read on the supplied links, "One Six Right" is an infomercial for the aviation business, with additional support from Sony, Apple and other major corporations.

Are you guys serious? Is this to be the model for independent film production and distribution? By comparison, it makes Hollywood look selfless and democratic.

 

[jpp]

If anyone is still following the matter, I happened to see "Take Out". It was projected, at a well established art house, off a DVD. Looked like it was shot with a cheap DV camcorder, not even prosumer. Amateur operator, ambient light. Miserable tech credits aside, I don't quite understand why it got distribution, but the thing has been playing for 4 weeks, which is pretty amazing.

Anyway, $3000 would have more than covered production costs.

 

[Joel Kaye]

From what I've read on the supplied links, "One Six Right" is an infomercial for the aviation business, with additional support from Sony, Apple and other major corporations.

Are you guys serious? Is this to be the model for independent film production and distribution? By comparison, it makes Hollywood look selfless and democratic.

Is see criticism but I'm not seeing solutions. Feel free to offer a plausible plan if you've got one, otherwise I'm going to assume you're not serious.

There a lot of lessons to be had from One Six Right and one of them is that the guy found a niche that people are passionate about. He didn't set out to sell airplanes. He set out to make a good documentary on a topic he loved. If you can't respect that then that is your prerogative.

When I took some film school a few years ago I had never actually been exposed to so many people who didn't have the first clue about business. All they knew is they wanted money to make their movie. I don't think I ever heard anyone mention how they were going to make that money back for the investor... like who was they likely filmgoer who would see their movie.

If you're independently wealthy you can make whatever movie you want. You're not going to get money from someone else unless you have a plan to make the money back OR you're making a movie that sends a message your wealthy benefactor wants to send regardless of profit. At which point you've sold out to them.

I think it's possible to pick a marketable idea investors think will sell to some niche audience and make it as artistically as possible.