How to make money from internet distribution of movies?

[jpp]

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.

Not serious? Unless the laws of supply and demand don't apply to internet commerce, there still has to be underlying demand to see the film, however painlessly or cheaply you manage to deliver it. Where will that demand come from? Beyond it's value as publicity tool, how will the internet create demand for movies that people otherwise have no desire to see or time to investigate?

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.

Lack of respect for what he did is not the question. A specialized documentary with celebrity participation and financial backing found a niche audience and logged 20000 presales with hobbyists. Great. But this model is not a viable one for most fiction features.

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.

And that's exactly what they say in Hollywood. And every indie filmmaker thinks he's found the ideal synthesis of art and commerce. But the formulation doesn't help anyone make or sell films.

There's no lack of seriousness in asserting that there aren't reliable or rational approaches to making money in the movie business today. All you can do is hope for a miracle, work for a miracle, or trust that your talent is so great that it will overcome the odds.

 

[Joel Kaye]

There's no lack of seriousness in asserting that there aren't reliable or rational approaches to making money in the movie business today. All you can do is hope for a miracle, work for a miracle, or trust that your talent is so great that it will overcome the odds.

Well, wait a second, there hasn't been a reliable, rational way of making money on independent movies EVER has there? There's no news there. Even studios have always made 10 movies hoping one would make enough profit to cover the rest. And that's the STUDIOS.

I don't see how now is any worse than it ever has been. (OK, in the 80s right after home video rental happened and stores needed inventory was probably the best time to be in the business)

I'd argue that it's a better time now than it ever has been because with a marketing budget and a good strategy you can bypass the movie industry oligopoly and sell directly to consumers. And it'll possibly get even better from here. I think Youtube's new indie screening room hold's a lot of potential going forward.

We're living among a generation of kids that has seen more video via the Internet than they've seen in a theater. Now maybe we'll have to give them the movie for free to sell them a poster, but that's a model. Actually, theatrical release for nearly all movies loses money now and it's just the ad campaign for the DVD and associated merchandise. That's a business model and it's just fine.

Is complaining all you've got? If you don't have any positive idea about this industry why are you even on this forum?

 

[jpp]

Well, wait a second, there hasn't been a reliable, rational way of making money on independent movies EVER has there? There's no news there.

So we at least agree that the internet won't change this reality, obvious though the point may be.

Is complaining all you've got? If you don't have any positive idea about this industry why are you even on this forum?

Pointing to the facts doesn't strike me as "complaining", and my "positive idea" here is that you're wasting your time and your money if you're trying through calculation to reconcile art and perceived demands of the marketplace.

If that's not positive enough for the forum, sorry.

 

[number6]

So, Karapetkov... whadda ya think of your idea noW?

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Noone knows if it's gonna work, we'll see.

The most important thing is to have impressive material and to assure the advertisers that [initially] they've got nothing to pay.

I'm definitely giving it a try.

 

[number6]

Noone knows if it's gonna work, we'll see.

The most important thing is to have impressive material and to assure the advertisers that [initially] they've got nothing to pay.

I'm definitely giving it a try.

Lead on, Dude! If you make it through the fire, then I'll be right behind you. (If you don't, well, thanks for going first.)

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

If there's any success in this way I'll definitely show off.

Actually, there's nothing to lose. When Cola-Cola rejects me, there's Pepsi, Mercedes, McDonalds, etc .

 

[jpp]

All you can do is make the films you believe in. Worry about the marketing later because all the calculation in the world will fall flat and always does. There are no predictable indie successes.

 

[amrrahmy]

movies don't sell more because there artistically better.
i just browsed over these

Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036
Shrek the Third (2007) $320,706,665
Transformers (2007) $318,759,914
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $309,404,152
Meet the Fockers (2004) $279,167,575

all remakes, sequels, prequels in the past few years.

movies like:
epic movie, meet the spartans, the onion movie, the comebacks, the ten.

they were not even movies, more like low tv productions something.

i remember spoof movies being done by filmmaker to point out goofs and make fun of studio movies, they were made by professional talented filmmakers, today they are made by(what i assume) tv prodution crew that got promoted to do films that are worse than the actual movies they are trying to make fun of. how is that possible to make fun of movies if they are making a much bigger fool out of themselves.

have u seen the latest aliens vs predator requiem, and the directors were complaining that the budget was only 40mil, and that the movie didn't turn out so good because of the limited budget(of 40 mil with no a-list or b-list actors).

i'll wait to find a nice small budget film to do for free to be presented in a known festival like sundance or something, do any of u know a good movie crew missing a cinematographer?

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

First, we think of starting on a micro-level - in music.

Maybe just one song [and later an album], which will be distributed legally for free in the net, but before we launch it we'll try to get a decent ad contract.

Another crucial thing is to have reliable download site(s), where we and the advertiser would both feel safe that no hack would occur with the visits\download count.

So, the plan is such:

We launch the song for free in the net, with the banner sitting above the download link.

And if\when the download count reaches 10 000 [for example], we start geting cash.

Sounds cool, eh?

Stay tuned, this won't be easy, many questions remain.

Unlike filmmakers, indie musicians now are totally FREE to create and finish music in their home studios. Very high quality results can be obtained.

 

[Joel Kaye]

i'll wait to find a nice small budget film to do for free to be presented in a known festival like sundance or something, do any of u know a good movie crew missing a cinematographer?

Well, since JPP hasn't responded let me depress you. Take a look at the last 10 years of Sundance selections and see how many got distribution. Of the very few that did see how many made a profit back to the filmmaker.

And then consider it's like winning the lottery to get selected to Sundance since they tend to choose pet projects of established Hollywood talent anyhow.

I think the biggest killer for filmmakers has been the whole festival and distribution system itself.

 

[amrrahmy]

i'm not talking dogs,
good quality movies and maybe if possible a b or c-list actors involved.

allot of producers have budgets to buy a certain amount of movies in the festival right?
allot of companies anticipate the festival and love buying films from indies for little money that they didn't waste any time on compared to there cost when trying to make small budget movies right? it's a gr8 opportunity to show ur talent.

a good movie that have some nice reviews can be at least given to known websites, right?

 

[jpp]

Thanks Joelnet, I don't want to be the only voice of doom and gloom. Here's some more depressing news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/movies/26thin.html?scp=1&sq=taxi+to+the+dark+side&st=nyt

Among the money quotes:

Mark Gill, the president of the Film Department, another independent distribution and financing company, and the former president of Warner Independent, said the current downturn for independent film could be attributed to three things: “a glut of movies in the market, the turning off of the money spigot (due to the drying up of hedge-fund money), and a change in the way people spend their leisure time.”

I agree on the destructive effects of film festival culture, though it's something of a bind. Without all that hype and corporate-financed pseudo-indie production, there would probably be even fewer distribution opportunities. Prior to "Stranger Than Paradise" and early John Sayles, which must have been mid 80s, it was almost unheard of for a low or no-budget film to get into a theater. There was a sort of blessed age a few years later, with relatively few non-Hollywood films being produced, at the same time public interest in non-Hollywood material was growing. But that sellers' market didn't last long.

 

[amrrahmy]

yes, i know and agree to that, but it doesn't mean everything is a bust.

allot of movies dont sell, allot of movies that sell act as filler in the theater between big budget studio movies, but some movies actually gets the chance to make a profit.
maybe it's less than 5% gets noticed and maybe half that would be used and only 1-5 movies would make it big, but that's not bad odds when u see most of the movies in the festival, they were not gr8 to begin with to hope to make profit.i like these odds.

 

[Joel Kaye]

i'm not talking dogs,
good quality movies and maybe if possible a b or c-list actors involved.

allot of producers have budgets to buy a certain amount of movies in the festival right?
allot of companies anticipate the festival and love buying films from indies for little money that they didn't waste any time on compared to there cost when trying to make small budget movies right? it's a gr8 opportunity to show ur talent.

a good movie that have some nice reviews can be at least given to known websites, right?

So you think Sundance has been passing on the good movies and accepting dogs?

3624 feature films got submitted to Sundance. For the 2008 festival, a total of 121 feature films were chosen, representing 24 countries and 55 first-time filmmakers. Of the 17 films sold at Sundance…8 were documentaries. $25 Million total take. $15 of that $25 million went to 2 movies. Big winners:

* Hamlet 2 - Comedy (Budget 9 million sold for 10. Nice)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104733/trailers-imdb-vi1659044121

* Choke - Comedy ($3.4 million, sold for 5 million. Nicer)
Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity and language.

It's all about the art really.

So find your genre, budget, stars and search all the festivals in the past year. See any similar sales? Ignore 2 years ago and older. Different market.

 

[jpp]

Amrrahmy, it's just that most people working outside the industry find it impossible to raise enough money from commercial sources to create a persuasive dramatic illusion. Also, filmmakers who have the character and psychological determination to self-produce and spend years looking for money are rarely good writers. The result is, most of the money goes down the drain on inadequately realized and poorly written productions.

In terms of odds, maybe 1% of submissions gets into the Sundance Dramatic Competition. Of those, 3/4ths are likely to be phony indies, films with celebrities that couldn't be made without corporate approval. So, for real people, we're talking about a fraction of a percent. And a fraction of that fraction of a percent gets picked up by a distributor, often for no money.

If you make a brilliant film, it will get noticed, whether it sells or not and whether or not Sundance smiles on you. But if people knew how to make brilliant films with little or no money, there wouldn't be so many dogs around.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Thanks Joelnet, I don't want to be the only voice of doom and gloom. Here's some more depressing news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/movies/26thin.html?scp=1&sq=taxi+to+the+dark+side&st=nyt

Good article. Though I'm still personally of the belief that the movie business is imploding from within like the music business. Which is to say, anyone inside the industry probably won't see the way out. There isn't a way out. For them. edit: needed to qualify this and say the big studios will continue doing just fine making hugeass event movies. Most people see a handful of movies per year in the theater - the hugeass event movies.

But that's not the same as saying you can't make money in this business as an indie filmmaker. But you're not going to make a movie and sell it to a studio and have them sell it for you. Not unless you make something both commercial and great.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It seems that we're limited to no\low budget shorts then.

For the moment, at least.

 

[number6]

It seems that we're limited

...only by how much you (we) allow others to define what we do once we get the tools in hand that gives us the freedom to do different. What is that different? TBD

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It's actually all in the script.

I re-watched Reservoir Dogs recently.

It's brilliant and it's script + actors, nothing else, in terms of expenses.

But I wonder, how did Tarantino manage to sign all of these guys.