How do indies get +$200K funding?

[Brandon Fraley]

Could someone direct me to several "watchable" recent films made for $25K?

Or even one?

Primer is one of my favorite films. ~$7000

 

[Russ McDonald]

Had to comment on this.

Justin there is a lot of good input here, as well a lot of bullshit sarcasm. There is a lot of people on this site that talk about making a feature, sadly that's all they will ever do. They come up with a thousand justifications why they haven't done it.

Dist. are just interested in making crap?

I need 2 million, but I could only get a commitment 500,000?

I got this guy who say's he knows a guy, this one is my personal favorite.

The list is endless. The key to being the guy who makes a movie and the who talks about making a movie is simple. Make it with what you have not what you think you need. If you have to shoot it on HDV, then shoot it in HDV.

I couldn't get a dime to shoot Eddie's, door after door was shut in my face. I was able to get 800 ft of stock from Kodak to do a test. So I called my DP a talented guy, who was hungry, believe me they're out there. I shot the trailer in a day, total crew and cast that day was 10 people. Total cost to do it was a few favors, and 1600 bucks. I showed that trailer to four people with money, one of them invested I shot the film.

You have to ask yourself; how much do I have. If your thinking your going to make Die Hard, forget it. Not the first time my friend. What you need to make is a 80 min feature that takes place in two maybe three locations, with 4 characters, and happens in real time. They have 80 min before they are dead, unless they put away the bullshit between them and come together. If your doing the Character driven piece, your version of dinner with Andrea. The less you spend the better. Even if it takes 6 months of shooting on the weekends than that is what you do. There are brilliant actors out there who will give you great performances, and they're not that hard to find, you just have to look. It make take time to get through the bad ones, but you'll find them. Just write them a good part, give them latitude to build the character, and feed them well...

You do what I'm telling you do, and in a year from now your film will be done and screening in a festival somewhere. If it's good some one is going to offer you money for it. It's that simple. Either way you'll have credibility to make your next one, odds are they will come knocking on your door.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Hell yeah to that! The only part I've been worried about is actors. But you guys are boosting my confidence on this one.

Whoo. I'm glad I made every single role in my feature count for something.

 

[Imran Farouk]

agreed.I've been talking about for ages getting a crew together and shooting something and during my mid-term I actually did do that. Just because I know I can either ask people how to do every little detail from funding to styling and shooting my video or to actually go and shoot it with the knowledge I've gained and let the budget sort itself out. The idea is that you beg and plead everyone and you deal with what you have. 200k isn't necessary, there's that Martial arts video in the SHOT ON RED forum, done for 750 euro. LOOKS BEAUTIFUL!That's just proven to me that I was an idiot for the amount i spent on my short and that even the smallest amount with the right crew,script,director and/ DP can go a long way.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

This is good stuff. Lots of interesting viewpoints.

A lot has changed over the years. I think it's safe to say that the "Indie" filmmakers of the 60's and 70's were facing different circumstances than the ones of the past few years. If we think about access to the tools needed to make films, that access is far more achievable these days than it was in the 60's and 70's. On the positive side, filmmakers with strong storytelling skills are finding ways to get their ideas onto the screen, opportunities that may have been a bit more difficult to achieve back when film was really the only option and it was expensive. The somewhat negative side effect of this incredible access these days is that the floodgates are opening, we are being inundated with content. It's much harder to get your voice heard through all of the noise. But having said that, I've always believed this:

A great film never achieves that status based solely on budget, star appeal, or because it overachieved. A great film is one that transcends all of that, and speaks to an audience in a way that is only achieved through a perfect coalescence of story, acting, cinematography, art design, costuming, sound design, etc. It's achieving that perfect blend of ingredients that makes people walk out of the theatre feeling like they have seen something truly great, even if they don't understand all of the subtleties of why they are feeling that way.

This is something that can be achieved on a $100 budget or a $100 million dollar budget. Either way, it is very hard. Many Hollywood films are technically very good, but many don't have that "Something". They are good enough to make some money, but will never be referred to as great. And many art house films/Indie films are interesting experiments, fresh approaches to filmmaking. But many of them also fall short of hitting the great mark. You may walk away saying "that was interesting" but do you connect with it on that higher level.

That's what makes this discussion interesting. What is the goal of making a film? Is it to be a calling card? To win festivals? Do you simply NEED to tell your story? Or do you truly believe you have one of the core ingredients to making a GREAT film? Money certainly plays a role in all of this. But more important than anything else is knowing how to put all of the elements together within the budget you ultimately have to work with and coming out with a film that breaks through the noise, achieves a connection to a universal audience, and achieves that ever elusive GREAT status.

Identify what it is you are trying to achieve with your film. I think knowing this will help you start to move in the right direction. You'll know the demands of your script. You'll have to look at those objectively and come to the conclusion of whether it can be made for XXX amount of dollars and still have a shot at achieving your goals for the film. You may need help in determining this if you don't have the experience level.

There is a lot of good advice in this thread, and mine is just merely a voice amongst many. But I do wish you the best of luck with whatever you do.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

the puffy chair- shot for 15k
grossed 192,000k
26k on opening weekend (7 screens)

 

[Yannick Hagman]

It's definitely a lot harder to write on a budget, because you have to limit yourself somewhere. However it can be done. And it became simpler with what we have access to. Everyone can put a simple comp together in After Effects nowadays. The real problem is dist. The most successful examples probably had an interest group in mind. With that, it it's possible to basically have the film presold if it's under 25k. If you can pull a good movie out about hypocracy of the catholic church, you won't have a problem, because there are millions of people out there that like to see something satiric about the church if it's well done.

It's the script that decides for the most part...

 

[jpp]

You do what I'm telling you do, and in a year from now your film will be done and screening in a festival somewhere. If it's good some one is going to offer you money for it. It's that simple. Either way you'll have credibility to make your next one, odds are they will come knocking on your door.

Well, maybe, but you're still getting my goat here.

A medium like cinema, with one foot in art and one foot in commerce, and dependent on mass-markets, presents challenges which won't be overcome by the force of personal character alone. The mix required in the U.S. -- talent, luck, being in the right place and right time, an instinct for the market, the right contacts, salesmanship -- will promote some and leave others behind. Nothing tragic in that outcome, the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee everyone success in the movie business. But the organization of the business in this way does have consequences.

We need to go back to something raised by knockoutfilms earlier: the filmmakers who succeed today are also producers and business people. They go out and raise money, and sell, and they're personable and respectful on the Charlie Rose Show and they're deal-makers, because that's the only way to get a movie made.

Which is grand, but such a requirement would kill most other art forms. Imagine if a "serious" novelist had to raise $500K (or $50K for that matter) and kiss Charlie Rose's ass, before he could start on a new book. It's not likely we'd have many American classics. In fact, we'd likely have none at all.

The organization of the business in this way does have consequences in the movies, or at least the alternate indie movie business -- despite all the intelligence and artfulness which can go into films in Hollywood, and the occasional indie film worth seeing and the occasional Hollywood film worth seeing, and the films which still get made despite their apparent lack of commercial appeal. The industry isn't a monolith; strange things can still happen.

But the U.S. approach to financing films is not the norm. Other countries find other ways to do it, and some of of them have thriving alternative movie movements. We don't, in my view.

This is not an excuse to sit around complaining, and it shouldn't stop anyone from making a movie, you could be the next Spielberg or the next Tarkovsky or the next Kevin Smith, pick your poison. But it's folly to pretend that our economic system has no consequences in the arts, or that all failures are entirely personal ones. We don't have the equivalent of a European or Asian art-house national tradition, or the opportunities those traditions typically offer filmmakers.

Tragic? Probably not. One thing there's no shortage of in this world is movies. But this situation explains a lot, in my view. We have a banking crisis because of the way we organize society in this country, and we have a crisis of the arts as well, for much the same reason. Greed, and delusional confidence in the infinite wisdom of the [imaginary] free market.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

This is a wonderful discussion going on here! Here's my current take on indie filmmaking (subject to change, of course).

Time = Money. If you can truly wrap your head around this, you can make practically any film, for pennies.

I agree with most of the posts above about not needing $200K+ to make a good film. I actually feel that $10K should be enough to cover basic expenses for a feature that doesn't involve aliens blowing up the white house. It all boils down to, as JPP said, having one foot in the art, and one foot in the business.

The art:
Write a compelling screenplay that can be executed by 3 or 4 actors max, in a few locations you can get for free. Harder than it sounds, but possible. Edit the movie at home on your PC or Mac, on nights and weekends so you don't have to quit your day job. It will take maybe a year (or more) from start of production to finished DVD.

Assuming your film is any good...

The business:
Don't expect to have Universal buy your film and give it the multi-million dollar marketing campaign necessary to stand out among the flood of Hollywood tentpole films. Instead, figure out self distribution. Once the film is finished, submit to festivals. When you're accepted in a few, bring DVDs of your film to sell after every screening. $20 a pop, autographed by you in person. If you sell 20 or 40 DVDs in each screening, that's anywhere from $800 to $1600 in one fesival. Do this until your festival invitations run out. Then, arrange free public screenings (digital projections off the DVD) in smaller movie theaters, schools, etc., and bring DVDs to sell there afterward. Repeat until you've made a profit.

This isn't even including setting up a website and selling directly to all your Facebook and MySpace friends. Sell it from home and save a bundle.

The downside with this is that you'll be working for a year or more simply distributing the movie, after having spent a year or more making the movie. If you can live with that, then go for it.

But don't wait until you can somehow raise $200k in order to make your indie film. If you have access to those kind of investors, then you should be aiming for $10 million with a killer script, and a couple of TV stars attached. Whole other ballgame.

Great thread. Keep it coming!

 

[Joel Chu]

There's a caution here, though. It's true that you don't need millions to make a movie people will be willing to watch, but these ultra-low budget flicks do have an element of performance art about them.

In effect, the poverty of the production becomes part of the text, the drama itself. One or two such movies per season is about the limit, I think, though they can serve as useful calling cards, as argued above.

Incidentally, we could add maybe a dozen or so mumblecore movies to the list. I don't like them so didn't play them up, but most were made for well under $5,000 and some for as little as $2000 and less.

As for Thunderfish (http://www.vimeo.com/4133582) no one believe that was shot with 10K, in fact, lots people think that was shot with 1 million+ budget.

You are right too, one movie comes to mind is "The last broadcast" made for $900 back in 1998. And it brings $4m worldwide (box, DVD, TV)

But no money doesn't mean no production value. It's down to the film makers to figure this one out.

 

[A. Clint Litton]

Great discussions all around. Looking forward to the viewpoints that follow.

Wanted to mention another no-budget film, successfully made by a young director worth watching (IMHO), Aaron Katz.

Quiet City.

Made in NYC/BROOKLYN with essentially a cast of two, a handful of locations, an HVX, a DP with a good eye, a sound guy, and the director. Nothing elaborate production wise, just some solid moments and dialogue between two young people (possibly non-actors, not positive on this).

I think they shot for 4-5 days (the script definitely made this accomplishable production-wise), and Katz edited it on a borrowed computer at his place of employment during nights and weekends.

IMDB says its estimated budget was $2500, but I thought Katz mentioned 5k somewhere else. Nevertheless, it reportedly cleared $15k in B.O. sales in one month's time, and on one screen. No idea what it's done sales-wise in terms of foreign or dvd, but it definitely served as a calling card (I think he's now working on his third feature, a period piece, with likely a far larger budget). Beyond the fact that it has won him some acclaim, I personally think it was a great movie (even if small) that has a chance of being regarded decades down the road as a genuine piece of American independent cinema that speaks/spoke for a generation in a time and place. Some consider it mumblecore, but I think "Quiet City" transcends the movement, if you want to call it that.

Here's the trailer for anyone interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgRzs5qzb_4

In the end, mentioning a film may be off topic in the sense that it didn't have a budget that most seem to consider necessary to make a feature film (be it 200k or 2 million), but I think it serves as a very good example of a filmmaker taking a script and making it with the resources he had available, and making positive steps forward as a result. Has it changed his life financially? Not likely. But it stands as an example of what he could make with next to nothing. And it makes me feel pretty shameful about all the excuses I've made in the past for not having "adequate resources" or "a proper budget."

Keep up the great discussion! Cheers.

 

[Russ McDonald]

Well, maybe, but you're still getting my goat here.

A medium like cinema, with one foot in art and one foot in commerce, and dependent on mass-markets, presents challenges which won't be overcome by the force of personal character alone. The mix required in the U.S. -- talent, luck, being in the right place and right time, an instinct for the market, the right contacts, salesmanship -- will promote some and leave others behind. Nothing tragic in that outcome, the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee everyone success in the movie business. But the organization of the business in this way does have consequences.

We need to go back to something raised by knockoutfilms earlier: the filmmakers who succeed today are also producers and business people. They go out and raise money, and sell, and they're personable and respectful on the Charlie Rose Show and they're deal-makers, because that's the only way to get a movie made.

Which is grand, but such a requirement would kill most other art forms. Imagine if a "serious" novelist had to raise $500K (or $50K for that matter) and kiss Charlie Rose's ass, before he could start on a new book. It's not likely we'd have many American classics. In fact, we'd likely have none at all.

The organization of the business in this way does have consequences in the movies, or at least the alternate indie movie business -- despite all the intelligence and artfulness which can go into films in Hollywood, and the occasional indie film worth seeing and the occasional Hollywood film worth seeing, and the films which still get made despite their apparent lack of commercial appeal. The industry isn't a monolith; strange things can still happen.

But the U.S. approach to financing films is not the norm. Other countries find other ways to do it, and some of of them have thriving alternative movie movements. We don't, in my view.

This is not an excuse to sit around complaining, and it shouldn't stop anyone from making a movie, you could be the next Spielberg or the next Tarkovsky or the next Kevin Smith, pick your poison. But it's folly to pretend that our economic system has no consequences in the arts, or that all failures are entirely personal ones. We don't have the equivalent of a European or Asian art-house national tradition, or the opportunities those traditions typically offer filmmakers.

Tragic? Probably not. One thing there's no shortage of in this world is movies. But this situation explains a lot, in my view. We have a banking crisis because of the way we organize society in this country, and we have a crisis of the arts as well, for much the same reason. Greed, and delusional confidence in the infinite wisdom of the [imaginary] free market.

What's you goat's name? I swear I've never seen your goat, in fact I hate goats. It's a childhood trauma thing, but thank for bring it back to the surface. You insensitive bastard... I hope your happy.

The only issue I have with your post is the last paragraph, but you and I can can PM each other about the political issues. Me being the Capitalist pig, and you the Pinko long haired, Hippie. You know I'm just kidding you Jpp.

Jamie is on to something, the distribution matrix is changing. Believe me, what is happening to music is going to happen to film. The Eagles album Long Road Out of Eden is a great example. Exclusively sold out of Walmart 11.95 for two CD's of great music. So effective was the distribution channel that other stores bought the album at Walmart, marked them up and resold them.

This is the future for Film. High profile Actors, doing personal films just the kind of artie, fartsey films Jpp loves. (I kid because I love) AppleTV, Netflix direct, the list will grow. The opportunities will multiply. The power of the desktop, the growth of high quality home theaters at bargain prices, and the RED revaluation. Has put the power back in the hands of the film makers, not since the beginning of the film business has the opportunities been this great.

You guys have to understand that what you are going through is the same shit, that the big names are going through, I consult for them all the time, they are all chasing money just like you, trying to squeeze out production value from the budgets they have. Granted there are more zero's in their budgets but the production Matrix is the same. In some ways for them its worse, I know a lot of you are saying, "Boo-who."

Look at it from their perspective, most of these performers are treated like 11 year olds. They get the Vanity production deal, and development money to do their "personal projects", hell the studio will even help you staff your production company, so all that development money goes to overhead and not on the screen. Then these Stars have to bring the project to studio. Who contactually has the first look, and first right of refusal. If the studio says no to them. They have to chase the money just like you. But it worse, because their movie has already been rejected by a major studio. So the money people think your a big star, a walking ATM machine so to speak, and the company that is in the best position to profit from your creative endeavors. Thinks your project is to risky and won't make money. The potential investor says "Why should I give you my money, so I can lose it." Talk about a fucked up catch twenty two!

You guys are lean, mean, film making machines with considerable latitude. Which gives you a considerable edge. Don't by they're bullshit, believe me the distributors don't want you in their sand box. They want to keep you thinking that they're the only route to success, they are an easier road for sure. And don't be an Idiot if they come calling, just protect yourself and turn their momentum to your advantage "Filmmaker Aikido". But they're not the only route, it may take longer, and your revenue stream may be a lot slower to realize. But in the end when you look at it, you'll have made more money, and had a greater degree of creative fulfillment as a Maverick.

The question now becomes will you be ready when your time comes.

 

[Justin Anderson]

Can't tell you how happy I am with all the replies in this thread. This helps so much. Thank you everybody! :thumbsup:

 

[Imran Farouk]

My Process

My Process

Being a business man/woman and a director is difficult for sum..however,what would make all this so much easier...is set distribution links...
selling DVDs...sounds easy...I'm starting to think this might be quite difficult...though I could be wrong...

However, what I would LOVE to see is iTunes and the like have an Indie section...whereby film makers can submit directly to this side and let the customers choose what they want..with a set price for each film which is appropriate for whether it is brilliant or crap..60% goes towards the film maker...that can go towards paying back investors etc.

The reasoning for this is because iTunes has such a huge customer base that it would help greatly. Yet this itself is difficult as most are festival winners. Obviously in turn this means they are bound to make money but what about the ones that want to get distribution whilst attending these festivals, festival winners don't out right make them brilliant. Like some say..theres always that SOMETHING missing. Well most of the time there is, some of these are great some have you walking out going 'meh that was entertaining' just not something that would stick with you though.

Basically...three points to help is...(at least i find this)
When writing a script go all out, write it as you want it.
Re-read the script and look at it, estimate how much you would need and then be realistic and estimate how much you could obtain. At this point if your needs and your realism meets up then thats good, yet your realism shouldn't really go beyond the amount needed for the script but rather normally be under that amount. So basically 100 is my needed realistically i can only get 50.

Look at the script. Whats necessary? In a film, you don't want your audience sitting there and getting bored, you want the audience always clued in and hooked. So what don't you need? Cut it out and see how much then. Once you've got it down to what the audience would find entertaining yet also something you find gripping and great. Find investors, friends, family etc. Distributors are less likely these days to meet you so find people close to them to get to them or you can try your luck and you might get that.

After which a lot is through the planning before the production process which really determines how much money gets spent. If you can come under budget that'll probably get your a higher chance of getting an investor next time, especially if you can pay back the amount you borrowed. The way to do this is find someone that can manage your money well. Don't self manage it as a director or someone close to the film you will probably not be able to help yourself
This whole time though, through scripts and production and post production constantly know how your distributing, where your distributing, market etc. alot of this isn't very business like since as a director your always thinking of your audience which in turn determines how you will distribute and how your film turns out. (IF you want to go WEB though, I suggest watching the web series FilmFellas, theres a brilliant episode...i think 7, that speaks of being able to sell your product online.)

I realise this is diverting from the topic but the need for +200k funding isn't there. I was watching a bunch of camera reviews last night (want to get a new one) and there was one camera shoot out in particular that opened a point up to me. If anything, done in the right hands, with the right amount of skill etc. any camera can be made to look like anything. Like many have said here some of these videos look like they have been done for much more then they were. This is because of the skill. I bet if I gave 10k to everyone that owned a RED some would be able to make that 10k look like 100k some 1mil and others(just for argument sake) less then 10k.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

However, what I would LOVE to see is iTunes and the like have an Indie section...whereby film makers can submit directly to this side and let the customers choose what they want..with a set price for each film which is appropriate for whether it is brilliant or crap..60% goes towards the film maker...that can go towards paying back investors etc

This would, of course, be the holy grail of online distribution. If iTunes allowed indie filmmakers to distribute online, everything would change. No costs for production of merchandise, just upload the HD and SD masters to iTunes, and sell away.

As Imran said above, they would probably have to set up a separate "indie films" section, to not get in the way of the big Hollywood releases. And they'd have to figure out an appropriate screening process for all indie films being uploaded, similar to the app aproval process for the iPhone. Since most indies are unrated films, somebody would have to make sure there isn't a flood of porn flicks posted on iTunes.

Maybe the way to do it is to only accept films that have been officially rated by the MPAA. Anything rated R or less could be sold through iTunes. NC-17 or unrated films would have to go somewhere else...

Sorry about the off-topic, but something like this really would change the entire landscape of indie film distribution.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

i dont know maybe i am pessimistic, but who should download an unkown movie on itunes?

of course there will be one or two unexpected hits with this method, but a lot of movies would have the same fate, ending up never been seen, doesnt matter if its on itunes or not.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

If Jannard came out would provide such a platform (which basically would be a fusion of steam/last.fm) and give 80-90% (exactly what steam gives independent game developers) to the filmmaker he could crash every distribution scheme out there. The only thing it needs is marketing and more money than an individual can come up with which is the reason it doesn't exist.. or at a much smaller scale: http://www.indieflix.com/

I don't think Apple has a major interest in providing a good ratio to filmmakers. Not even considering that Jobs constrolls Disney/Buena Vista now.

 

[Imran Farouk]

i dont know maybe i am pessimistic, but who should download an unkown movie on itunes?

of course there will be one or two unexpected hits with this method, but a lot of movies would have the same fate, ending up never been seen, doesnt matter if its on itunes or not.

This is very true...However, there is also a lot of music that doesn't get listened to also and yet its still on there, or maybe one or two people listen to. No matter what its much like what Jannard is doing for us with scarlet, its the ultimate amount of choice. This choice when given to customers will determine how either stupid or brilliant the idea was in the first place to put such a section up. Yet the up side to this is that using such a process as the app store one they do, Jaime said, it can be pushed down to movies that are potentially worth seeing. Fair enough you'd be annoyed that your movie wasn't allowed in, but so are the people at the app store and it just means you have to fight harder, that may drive some people that may cause some people to just give up. Thats how the film making business works though isn't it?

At the end of it all, its the best way to get distribution online in a market area that is already populated. This is pretty much like the high streets around the world, a simple road with many shops, your job is to get the customers in the shop and buy a product. This is the way film distribution should be working on the internet but nothing as such has been set up yet as its a very cut throat business with no single structure being able to be easily replicated to be used by every user. The only way right now is, festivals, DVD and cinemas. Even though however, each to their own, is difficult. Also the funding as this thread is about, is potentially difficult to gain.

Therefore to gain such quality is dependent upon skill. If I can shoot a 5 star movie for (hypothetically) $750 yet I can't afford to master it onto film nor can I gain advertising for DVDs which cuts out everything but festivals. Yet I can't get anymore funding out of my own pocket or friends/families to put into a festival I'm now stuck with a 5 star film with no chance on getting my $750 back. (though if it was in fact 5 stars this wouldn't happen is going to be your argument, so make it 4 stars. Some movies are not liked now but loved after a while and become a 'classic' I'm sure there are examples of this, apparently "Blade Runner" was one of them. Got a cinema release yet wasn't adored as such, at least this was what I was told, argo I watched it ) iTunes comes into play and I just master the copy I have into a proper HD downloadable version and slam it through the authentication process(make sure copy right laws are in place etc.) and then onto the site. I realize this would never happen and therefore your pessimism is correctly placed. Apple agrees with it very much in the sense "why should we put 'unknown' movies on our store". The thing is though, isn't FCP aimed at indie users?Low cost editing software.

If YOUTUBE wasn't so cluttered with the rubbish or vimeo was more widely known amongst the general public this could turn into such a high street. Sadly there's no serious way to make money from it unless you start putting adverts in or getting endorsements for your actors to wear particular clothings etc.

The biggest problem obvious is this 200k, at least thats what people think. No that's not the problem at all, in fact its how do you plan to get the 200k back. If I'm an investor and you can't tell me how your going to get my money back, as amazing as the movie maybe. I'll happily take my 200k to the guy that wants to make Bad Boys 3 :sifone:

 

[Russ McDonald]

If Jannard came out would provide such a platform (which basically would be a fusion of steam/last.fm) and give 80-90% (exactly what steam gives independent game developers) to the filmmaker he could crash every distribution scheme out there. The only thing it needs is marketing and more money than an individual can come up with which is the reason it doesn't exist.. or at a much smaller scale: http://www.indieflix.com/

I don't think Apple has a major interest in providing a good ratio to filmmakers. Not even considering that Jobs constrolls Disney/Buena Vista now.

I think this is a great concept, but in practice it wouldn't even come close to crashing conventional distribution channels. We all get into this indie bubble. Because of the dominate size of the type "A" personalities that populate this site.

The distribution matrix for films will be the way it is for decades to come. Physical costs of bandwidth, and the infrastructures necessary to deliver this to households will always have a gate-keeper. Weather it's proprietary encryption, or packaged services. In the end the dynamics of attracting a distributer will always be the same. The delivery method maybe different, but the same market driven rules will apply.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Indies need to stop screwing people who help them out though.

I bought Dr Horrible's Sing Along on iTunes and then the DVD came out and it had an awesome musical commentary.

Where's the love for early adopters? I'm not buying it twice.