How to make money from internet distribution of movies?

[jpp]

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

For the moment, at least.

Are you familiar with what's going on in the film industry in your neighbor, Romania - stuff like "Four Months.....", "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu"? These aren't no-budget efforts, and they tend to have amazingly good performances, but the money is coming from somewhere and it's not excessive.

On the Western festival circuit, people want to see something new, not financially hobbled versions of already familiar movies. In the post-communist miasma you've been talking about, there must be a movie, no? Find something which naive idiots like us in the U.S. haven't seen and can't imagine.

 

[number6]

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

He probably enthused them into signing.:w00t:

 

[Joel Kaye]

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

What about higher budget shorts? 3 years ago I thought shorts were a waste of time. Might as well make a feature. Now I see good shorts as having the potential to be viewed by many millions of people. Is it possible to monetize that? Probably. Will people pay to see the short? Probably not.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Are you familiar with what's going on in the film industry in your neighbor, Romania - stuff like "Four Months.....", "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu"? These aren't no-budget efforts, and they tend to have amazingly good performances, but the money is coming from somewhere and it's not excessive.

On the Western festival circuit, people want to see something new, not financially hobbled versions of already familiar movies. In the post-communist miasma you've been talking about, there must be a movie, no? Find something which naive idiots like us in the U.S. haven't seen and can't imagine.

There are millions of movies here. An excess of [all kinds of] conflict = drama .

But it is not easy, you know.

You can't just... go out and shoot whatever,.. you should know that.

There's a lot of prep to be done and it's better to wait and prep more than to go-and-shoot a pile of sh*t.

The script has to be ready, you need lots of reliable people willing to work for no\low\deferred pay, good actors who fit their roles, minimum production budget, etc.


Otherwise,

Yeah, I have something in mind... to take you places you've never been before .


Stay tuned.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

He probably enthused them into signing.:w00t:

That's gotta be it. I see that Keitel is CoProducer.

He and the others were probably impressed by the script\director and signed for deferred payment or % of the profit or something.

 

[amrrahmy]

it's still good odds, if the producer can get actors(b-c-d list) to do it for free or a percentage of the profit, u can make masterpieces with close to no money(few thousands plus equipment),and maybe a couple of exteriors for free too. it's not impossible to make descent movies with close to no budget.

i would also love a writer/director to flip the story into script.

 

[number6]

it's not impossible to make descent movies with close to no budget.

I hope that is not prophetic.:usd:

 

[Joel Kaye]

On the Western festival circuit, people want to see something new, not financially hobbled versions of already familiar movies

I'm not sure what that means really. What's "new"? And what new movie has done well on the festival circuit and gone on to be profitable for the filmmaker in the past year or so?

 

[amrrahmy]

I hope that is not prophetic

u dont need a miracle to make something great, u can make it a miracle.

 

[number6]

u dont need a miracle to make something great, u can make it a miracle.

I agree, and I hope (for my sake) u r rite

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I agree, and I hope (for my sake) u r rite

Me too. :weight_lift:

 

[jpp]

I'm not sure what that means really. What's "new"? And what new movie has done well on the festival circuit and gone on to be profitable for the filmmaker in the past year or so?

"New" as in "unfamiliar", a kind of cinema anthropology. The Romanian films I mentioned earlier are good examples. They ended up at Cannes and in American art houses, despite grim subject matter, and the director now enjoys an international reputation. I doubt the films made much money, or that anyone is throwing financing at the guy, but he'll make more movies.

On the question in general of low and no-budget filmkmaking, it's probably fair to say that there's a 99.99% chance of failure.

However, if people want to make movies and don't have any expectation of attracting money or inheriting a fortune, I think it makes far more sense to accept your limitations, work with what you have and play with that .01%, rather than dream on (and on... and on....). It's important here to recognize that production value, including 4K, 3K, 5K or SD, has nothing or next to nothing to do with the success or failure of such films (with a few rare exceptions; I could name them), so that's one less thing to worry about.

This kind of risk-taking requires a certain temperament, and it will probably exclude most of the kind of people who are traditionally regarded as artists -- the introverted doubting types and those who have a hard time accepting imperfection. But that's the way the business is, for better or worse.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I doubt the films made much money, or that anyone is throwing financing at the guy, but he'll make more movies.

On the question in general of low and no-budget filmkmaking, it's probably fair to say that there's a 99.99% chance of failure.

Hey, if someone can produce a movie and make enough money back to pay for their lifestyle they're doing well. It's all about keeping expenses in line with likely returns. The more money you spend the more commercial the project needs to be.

I think if artists of similar types of movies banded together they could cross market each other's stuff and perhaps be successful because they share the same audience. The more niched and underserved that audience is the better.

 

[Johann Schulz]

What karapetkov began here has nothing to do with the new realities of Sundance or name actors or budget.

You've decided for worse ;>) that you're an artist and that film/video is your medium of expression and that's going to be your job. You see? Now you're the boss, if you're smart, and you've got to sell what you're making because (even though I've watched my own shorts a million times and think they're brilliant) others have to share in your art/PRODUCT by watching them too, but it's gonna cost them, unless you want to live in a park.

Then come the rewards of money and praise; what all people need to survive communally, and my friend - Prosper! For once you survive, you'll want to thrive! Let's face it, a starving artist doesn't mean you're good, or even noble.

BTW, you CAN make your film look like a million bucks much easier today. I just bought FCS2 and I'm amazed with Colour, and if you add Shake, you can really bake! (oooh, advertising! bad, bad, baaad!!) It's not just music artists who can work out of their homes. Of course the real expense for film or videomakers is production, and always will be. But I've seen great blue and greenscreen work done at home, and I've been taken out of the story by sh*t hollywood CGI. Look at the new trailers for the Will Smith vehicle. They make me want to puke, technically, but this show's about comedy, so part of me still wants to see it....

No one's mentioned "Clerks", done by another 'Smith' on 16 grand or something, with no-names. Another career made because of talent mainly, my friends. He went out there and did it. He dropped out of my film school (VFS) not even halfway through and just did it.

Absolutely, downloads are getting faster, and look what's happening to your 'outdated' 50" flatscreens, with these new "organic" mm-thick screens!
Techno's the rage and I think advertisers will/are feeling the glut, too. TV audiences peaked long ago. That market isn't growing. Ads are pushing and shoving to get to their target markets....

Now, no-one has mentioned, (but a few), any of the internet sites that already do some sort of payback to their content providers, based upon "hits".
And you'll be surprised that you don't need a million hits to start making some coin:

www.metacafe.com

www.hungryflix.com

www.si-mi.com

www.dovetail.tv

www.cruxy.com

www.clipshack.com

www.brightcove.com

www.blip.tv

www.grapeflix.com

I've got more, but I'm sure if you check these out, you'll see your dreams... will... should... can... could... might... who knows?... come true!

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I just bought FCS2 and I'm amazed with Colour, and if you add Shake, you can really bake! (oooh, advertising! bad, bad, baaad!!)

You can strike a deal with Apple, that whenever the viewcount of your Apple-praising-posts passes 1000 on RedUser, they give you 1000 dollars.

:sorcerer: :clown2:

 

[amrrahmy]

clerks is cool.

but don't mix film with podcasting, that's not right.

 

[Johann Schulz]

karapetkov, give me a break! You seem to think you're Rodin's sculpture of Balzac. You've missed the point of my post, unless you've checked out all of the links, and still feel like I'm some corporate bug. You'll also notice in my posts, I'm far too cheerful about RED ONE. ...Maybe you're right.

Anyway, you guys are funny and that's why I'm tuning in! Film, podcasting - you see! Elitism doesn't stand a chance nowadays! Kids don't care outside of university film appreciation classes. (Yet those groups are still important). I'm nearly 44 and if I'm waiting around for traditional distributors to market my movies, I may be dead before more than my already dead grandmothers see what I've done....

amrrahmy, you're viewing a CRT! It's not about the origination medium anymore. That's why a RED compressed 4K signal is working miracles as we www...! Who needs film?! And how you view a film or video is your own damn business!!!

Sorry dudes, my bottle is empty now.

 

[Joel Kaye]

What karapetkov began here has nothing to do with the new realities of Sundance or name actors or budget.

Yes is does. It begs the question of whether Sundance is even needed anymore. It begs the question of "how much money can you make online"... which answers the question of "what should my budget be".

What's the most money anyone's ever made on one of those revenue sharing sites?

 

[Johann Schulz]

joelnet, if economics were only so easy! BTW, the sites are infants, you've got to feed them! Oh, hey! What tastes like chicken?

Around the bend - Right! Sundance is more corporate than ever. It's lost it's indy roots and mandate, to a certain extent. But if you go back to what karapetkov was talking about in the beginning, which I seem to be out of touch with anyways according to him, is the possibility of survival as an artist in these tough screening times. How can you make a buck off of your art while sitting at home in Sack'odoom? Just entertaining the thought seems to be a step forward.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

karapetkov, give me a break! You seem to think you're Rodin's sculpture of Balzac. You've missed the point of my post, unless you've checked out all of the links, and still feel like I'm some corporate bug. You'll also notice in my posts, I'm far too cheerful about RED ONE. ...Maybe you're right.

Anyway, you guys are funny and that's why I'm tuning in! Film, podcasting - you see! Elitism doesn't stand a chance nowadays! Kids don't care outside of university film appreciation classes. (Yet those groups are still important). I'm nearly 44 and if I'm waiting around for traditional distributors to market my movies, I may be dead before more than my already dead grandmothers see what I've done....

amrrahmy, you're viewing a CRT! It's not about the origination medium anymore. That's why a RED compressed 4K signal is working miracles as we www...! Who needs film?! And how you view a film or video is your own damn business!!!

Sorry dudes, my bottle is empty now.

ricopedra,

I was just kidding .

And I was also making fun of myself, given my initial proposition about the download counts.