The State Of Indie Film: Not Very Good at All

[Andrew Young]

While the new tools at our disposal allow us to do so much more with less $$, and while I applaud the democratization of the craft, it is very sobering to take note of what is been happening to independent films in the market place lately. It's not about quality - there's plenty of great stuff being made. It's about quantity. Financiers are finally facing up to the fact that there's too much product in the marketplace to make indie film a good investment. If your world revolves around indie production, I recommend reading both of these recent articles. Yes, they are depressing, but very important to be aware of.

Yes, the Sky Really is Falling by Mark Gill on indieWIRE

Glut of Films Hits Hollywood by By LAUREN A.E. SCHUKER and PETER SANDERS in the Wall Street Journal

Apologies if they’ve been posted before.

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

From:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039884622592871.html
Ouch:
"Major film distributors are being far more cautious in acquiring independently financed films for distribution,
a situation that has dramatically slowed business at major film gatherings such as Sundance in January and
Cannes in May. At Cannes this year, there was very little buying, with distributors shunning films such as
Steven Soderbergh's "Che," starring Benicio Del Toro."

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

great post on my favorite blog -

http://cinematech.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-there-future-for-indie-film.html

Scott ends his post with -

"And some people –- the real pessimists –- may believe that there will never be a new business model for independent film.

I’m curious what you think."

Well Scott ... I am EXTREMELY CONFIDENT there will be several new models. From chaos, comes opportunity. But I've always been a "the glass is half-full" kinda guy ...

 

[GlennChan]

indie film a good investment

When was it ever a good investment?

But on a serious note, what is being said is that indie film is not in a good state because the market is not very profitable. Other people would apply different metrics to success... e.g. the quality of films being made.
In my opinion, if anything, indie film is doing a little better than before. For filmmakers who don't care about theatrical releases or making money, they can now put their film up on the internet and other people can see it. And viewers of indie films have ways of figuring what's worth seeing and what's not worth seeing. It's not like a film festival of shorts, where your only choice is seeing the film or walking out of the theatre.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

I've read a lot of these over the past few months, one HUGE thing I notice is that they dont differentiate between the indies. Are there a glut of all indies? I think there's way too many documentaries for starters. Then into narative fiction, it seems they are all either no-budget horror, or drama. And it's well known that there is too much drama, at any level. So maybe it's more of a case of too much of the wrong product? Adama Cultraro, who recently made a $300k indie on the HVX200 with Tom Sizemore seems to be having no trouble at all, maybe it's because he made an action movie.

It's not fair to whine that the market is disappearing when the products desired aren't actually being made.

 

[ThydNostrum]

It is all politics. The theater owners decide which films to screen, from within their distributor's catalog. The distributors decide which film to distribute, from within the catalog of the Studios they are associated with. The Studios decide which films to finance and which artists and equipment to use.

The theaters and distributors are mostly owned by Studios, which in turn are owned by a few individuals.
Even pornography is controlled by few individuals.

 

[Andrew Young]

Great blog Mark. I too believe there will be new, technology-driven models, particularly as the internet begins to deliver high-quality content to the home theater. The sooner the better, I say. It's just staggering to see how the rising cost of marketing has impacted the viability of the good ole theatrical release.

 

[Andrew Young]

It is all politics. The theater owners decide which films to screen, from within their distributor's catalog. The distributors decide which film to distribute, from within the catalog of the Studios they are associated with. The Studios decide which films to finance and which artists and equipment to use.

Politics is huge, of course, but I don't think it is as big a factor as economics. With the steady rise in the number of films being made each year, (as seen in Sundance submissions) and in the growing number released, even a low budget film now needs a huge marketing budget just to get noticed in theatrical release. This has skewed the economics away from "small films." Clearly a new model is needed for all the good stuff out there to find an audience.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Well Scott ... I am EXTREMELY CONFIDENT there will be several new models. From chaos, comes opportunity. But I've always been a "the glass is half-full" kinda guy ...

You're also one of the few guys smart / talented enough to have a big Sundance success recently. I'll take heart from your comments because I think you know what you're talking about...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[donatello b]

as far back as i can remember there have been up & down times for indies/movie business ..
there have always been more product then available screens ...
new marketing models have ALWAYS popped up when old one's stopped/slowed working ....
hollywood (& the whole world industry) is always looking for new talent ...
Distributors are always looking for new product ...
hollywood doesn't know what indie movie will be a hit next ...
most distributors are looking for a movie that is like the one that was a hit 6 months ago ....

bottom line = there's always opportunity !!!!

 

[jpp]

The trouble with the suggestions offered in the blog post Mark cites is its underlying assumption that there's a hunger or a need for these movies. But there simply isn't time in the day for anyone to see all this stuff, even when it's offered free. I catch a few hundred non-Hollywood films a year, but can't begin to keep up with current world-wide art house production.

And the truth is, most of these movies are dispensable. They could have many good and admirable qualities, and yet they remain dispensable, which isn't lost on their potential audience. And, alas, American indies have their own particular demerits, thanks to the absence of non-commercial sources of funding.

In all, I think the expectations are wholly unrealistic. Unremarkable non-Hollywood films simply can't earn millions in box office, whether the box office is in the East Village or on the internet. Meanwhile, the true works of art among them don't have large potential audiences at the best of times.

For non-Hollywood filmmaking to survive in any thing like a healthy state, it seems to me two conditions have to be met: 1) some form of government financial subsidy and/or a theatrical quota system where theaters have to show a certain number of these films (a system in place in many parts of the world); and 2) greatly reduced expectations on the part of filmmakers, with respect to fame and income.

In the U.S., it will limp along without either condition being satisfied, and every few years someone, often undeserving, will hit the jackpot. But the prospects remain bleak without structural change. Even with structural change, there are too many of these movies for the size of the audience.

 

[David M]

Well, as I said in another thread, while RED is slashing the cost of the technological tools that allow anyone to become a film maker, the picture will not be complete until they or somebody else slashes the cost of cinema projection, so that anyone can also become a film exhibitor.

DVD and Internet distribution model don't really cut it, you need the group experience that only cinematic viewing can bring.

Digital projection has some largely unappreciated advantages over film projection, in particular, flexibility over what is being projected. With film projection there's no easy way to change the program once the film has been threaded up. Current "hands off" satellite download digital cinema distribution models are equally cumbersome, we badly need disk-based cinema-size 4K projection.

We badly need the return of the "Short".

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Cheaper projectors and cheaper cameras doesn't really help the problem of marketing costs so that people in the area will interested in seeing your movie...

 

[GlennChan]

1) some form of government financial subsidy and/or a theatrical quota system where theaters have to show a certain number of these films (a system in place in many parts of the world)

I think this is a bad idea (or a good way to waste money).

In Canada, the film and TV industries are heavily subsidized though theatres aren't forced to show Canadian films. TV broadcasters are forced to air Canadian content. Regardless, not many Canadians watch Canadian drama/narrative on TV or in theatres. There's a lot of BS about maintaining Canadian culture, but the reality is that Canadians watch American television more than Canadian television.
In my opinion, it's not a good way to spend society's resources when we have more pressing issues such as homelessness, war, the environment, etc.

2- From an artistic standpoint... if you look at storytelling for example... it used to be (pre-TV, pre-paper) that people would tell stories orally and that your stories would only go so far. It wouldn't have a global reach. With film, some films would have a global reach but for only a very limited number of films. You needed commercial backing. Now with the internet, any story can reach a global audience. Just look on Youtube (and the Star Wars fan films via bittorrent). So the distribution is there.

Granted, viewership of indie films is low compared to Hollywood blockbusters. But so is Canadian TV versus American TV. IMO, most people just prefer to see big-budget TV and films (which tend to have the cream of the crop in terms of talent) when it comes to narrative.
And even if you look at the top films lists from film experts (e.g. AFI), you see that big-budget films top their lists. These people have presumably seen a lot of indie films, so marketing budget is not really the issue.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Indie...

Indie...

I went to a film distribution conference at the Mill Valley film festival several years ago with my Brother and one of the speakers on the panel said this:

"Films get the distribution they deserve"

Then I think he or one of the others on the panel went on to talk about the 100 or so video tapes he gets each week with low grade me-to junk on them. He gave the impression that if you sent a tape of something worth looking at it would also end up in the trach can unviewed like all the others.

One hard question one needs to ask ones self is:

"If I did not make this film, or know anyone associated with it, would I go see it".

If the answer to that is No, then why would you think other people would?

There was a thread this week I think relating to giving the film away to get some Theatrical Distribution in order to help sales of DVDs and other items later.

Super Markets now charge for shelf space, if you do not PAY them they will not carry your brand.

As fewer and fewer people go to movie theatres I can see that even just giving your movie print to the theatre owner in hope that he would show it would not even be of interest to him, getting the film for free will not pay for the electricity if no one is there, and without adds who would show up?

To get even a few people in the theatre you need to PAY the theatre owner to show your film, and to pay for adds to get someone to show up.

Expecting to see a return from your "me to" film or for a distributor to be your champion when he can find 100 other things to show that are probably better money makers leaves you with few options, other than making something that has some actual draw.

A camera like a RED ONE (tm) helps you put more of what little money you have in front of the camera rather than have it go to the LAB, it also lets you shoot at a higher ratio something that can be a help with actors that do not have the one take down. It also lets you get a quality that is better than the mini-DV crowd. But with 5000 RED ONE (tm) in use, how you become the 1 in 5000 that makes a film that makes its cost back this year?

If anything you shoot does not look good, it will look much worse to the audience, if anything is boring the distributor will want it cut, so why shoot it in the first place?

Oh well, it is not easy, but if you make something you are truly happy with and proud you made, then maybe that is all that matters as long as it does not put you in debt for too long...

I'd better get back to work, things are going better than I thought a year ago with development of my DI system, I was not planing on doing TIF support but it fits much better with the RED ONE (tm) workflow now and you can see better results with fewer histogram gaps importing driect from REDCINE (tm) with REDLog 16bit TIF... I just need to make what gets shot is equal to the uncompressed DI in quality...

 

[number6]

Oh well, it is not easy, but if you make something you are truly happy with and proud you made, then maybe that is all that matters as long as it does not put you in debt for too long...

I'd better get back to work, things are going better than I thought a year ago with development of my DI system, I was not planing on doing TIF support but it fits much better with the RED ONE (tm) workflow now and you can see better results with fewer histogram gaps importing driect from REDCINE (tm) with REDLog 16bit TIF... I just need to make what gets shot is equal to the uncompressed DI in quality...

Best segue on the forum... hands doun!:usd:

afterthought: might 3-D be that one thing that can get a movie buzz... until 3-D becomes ubiquitous, that is?

 

[David M]

Cheaper projectors and cheaper cameras doesn't really help the problem of marketing costs so that people in the area will interested in seeing your movie...

I think it's a case of Buddy-can-you-spare-a-paradigm?:whistling:
Ten years ago who would have predicted the MP3 revolution? Or near DVD-quality pirate movie downloads off the internet? Or easily available software that lets you copy DVDs on $20 or so DVD drives?
Nobody marketed those, and legal or otherwise, you can't say they haven't been successful.
But CDs and DVDs seem to sell as well as they ever did and I haven't seen too much fall off in the number of video rental libraries (or cinemas for that matter).

 

[jpp]

I think this is a bad idea (or a good way to waste money).

In Canada, the film and TV industries are heavily subsidized though theatres aren't forced to show Canadian films. TV broadcasters are forced to air Canadian content. Regardless, not many Canadians watch Canadian drama/narrative on TV or in theatres.

This dispute isn't new to the forum, so let's stick with the non-controversial and non-ideological statements we can make about public subisidies:

1) a subsidy system can be demonstrably effective at nourishing talent (e.g., Australia, to take an English speaking country whose talent has penetrated Hollywood). In the case of Canada, I've seen a number of films which could never get financed in the U.S. Whether they were good enough to merit public subsidies in retrospect is an open question. I would argue "yes", but, in any case, there's a potential for excellence which simply doesn't exist in the U.S.

2) Most American art houses show publically subsidized foreign films, not commercially financed American indies. There's no more desire to see commercially financed American indies than there is to watch publically financed Canadian TV. You may still prefer private finance, but we can't pretend it's attaining a desirable market result.

3) the best of the American indies tend to emerge from private but generally non-commercial or non-professional funding arrangements; the "professionals" are largely incompetent at selecting either prestigious or profitable films. This is fine for the few who get the money, but it's no way to sustain a medium like film, where productive careers are not possible without sustained, enlightened and reliable sources of financing.

4 ) any "solution", including public subsidies, will involve waste. I don't know if it's still true, but the U.S. used to spend more on military marching bands, than all of the arts put together. So please: if nothing else, no arguments about wasting taxpayers' money.

5) there are no world-class arthouse filmmakers working in the U.S. today. How is that a tribute to the wisdom of the free market system, in a country this size?

6) can't we acknowledge, once and for all, that not everything good makes money? If there's no desire to subsidize filmmaking in the U.S., fine. But why do we have pretend, year after year, that we don't know what's wrong? Believe it or not, the commercial mindset doesn't always lead to the best possible outcome.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Great read, in all the links, reading is always good for the mind, but nonetheless is just reading, nothing more.

There is plenty of bad news about everything, and there is equally great news about everything.

It is good to know, what it is going on in our market place, but again it is only up to the individual to make his/hers story get Published/Distribuited.

I'm a positive person by nature, and will let nothing ever stand in the way of my success, yes it is true that there is an incredible amount of product, but this to me is good, more to choose from.

Yes the more product there is the harder becomes the selling, but not if you have a great story, and definitely not if you Persevere to your cause.


Continue to make Movies, and Persevere in your cause, no matter what, just remember that the Film Industry it is a Marketing Industry above all, and for such you must always leave finances for your marketing campaign, or no matter how great your film is, you will not be able to let anyone find out about it!

Not trying to teach anything to anyone here, just touching an important point once again!


I embrace Independent FilmMaking and this is why I opened KETCHFRAME STUDIOS, and everything I have is dedicated to it, FilmMaking is my Life, it is what I wanted to do my entire miserable life, and finally I'm doing it, and I'm miserable no more, no matter what happens, no one can stop me now, and don't let them stop you either, make your movie, and spread the word about it, in any means possible, don't let anyone tell you anything unless it is a positive thing, negativity about the economy or anything in life will get you no were, and yes we must be realistic as well, but been negative about a negative situation has no gains, while if you stay positive even in a negative situation, something positive can come out of it.


Okay back to work now!


ciao

 

[Clint Johnson]

This dispute isn't new to the forum, so let's stick with the non-controversial and non-ideological statements we can make about public subisidies:

1) a subsidy system can be demonstrably effective at nourishing talent (e.g., Australia, to take an English speaking country whose talent has penetrated Hollywood). In the case of Canada, I've seen a number of films which could never get financed in the U.S. Whether they were good enough to merit public subsidies in retrospect is an open question. I would argue "yes", but, in any case, there's a potential for excellence which simply doesn't exist in the U.S.

That talent is so desperate to express itself that one of the primary jobs of the guilds and unions is to keep them from working for free. The talent will nourish itself and the market will keep the chaff from mixing with the wheat. The subsidies nourish the lack of talent... or more accurately, they nourish the talent to fill out forms.

2) Most American art houses show publically subsidized foreign films, not commercially financed American indies. There's no more desire to see commercially financed American indies than there is to watch publically financed Canadian TV. You may still prefer private finance, but we can't pretend it's attaining a desirable market result.

This is exactly the market result I want. If nobody is buying buggy whips why should we keep the factory going?

3) the best of the American indies tend to emerge from private but generally non-commercial or non-professional funding arrangements; the "professionals" are largely incompetent at selecting either prestigious or profitable films. This is fine for the few who get the money, but it's no way to sustain a medium like film, where productive careers are not possible without sustained, enlightened and reliable sources of financing.

This thread started with a concern that there was a glut of films being made. When thousands are made that never find a market- I can't see the need for state intervention to make more unwatchable films.

4 ) any "solution", including public subsidies, will involve waste. I don't know if it's still true, but the U.S. used to spend more on military marching bands, than all of the arts put together. So please: if nothing else, no arguments about wasting taxpayers' money.

Because it is wasted in other areas we should ignore it when it is wasted on your favoured project? I would rather hold a consistent stand against wasting taxpayer money- full stop.

5) there are no world-class arthouse filmmakers working in the U.S. today. How is that a tribute to the wisdom of the free market system, in a country this size?

Not enough people want that particular form of entertainment. There aren't a lot of live vaudeville acts any more and I don't think that deserves a subsidy either. "Arthouse" films aren't of any more intrinsic value than any particular showing of "American Idol", The Dark Knight or an Ultimate Fighting championship bout. Our particular tastes don't change that and relying on the market system will keep those with esoteric interests from bullying the rest into paying for their particular kink.

6) can't we acknowledge, once and for all, that not everything good makes money? If there's no desire to subsidize filmmaking in the U.S., fine. But why do we have pretend, year after year, that we don't know what's wrong? Believe it or not, the commercial mindset doesn't always lead to the best possible outcome.

When it leads to an outcome where millions of people pay for the entertainment that they want while thousands don't get the entertainment that they refuse to pay for... that seems to be an acceptable outcome to me.