How do indies get +$200K funding?

[jpp]

Lars von Trier was a porn producer, director and shooter. I guess that's the way he has financed his early films mostly. I think the guy is very overestimated by filmcritics, btw.

Overrated or not, don't think this is quite right. Maybe he made porn at some point, just like Francis Ford Coppola, but he started making "serious" features in his 20s. He had an uncle in the Danish film industry and, of course, got public money.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Anyway, since I truly hated that film, drawing conclusions from it is not for me to do.

It doesn't matter whether you hated the film or not, the film's success stands as a testament that it can be done. A lot of people did enjoy it. To me, a film like "Once" has 10 times more credibility than your average Hollywood film. I didn't love "Once," but I thought it was watchable. And like I said, the music was sort of catchy.

And BTW, addressing the LVT issue, who cares if he did porn? I couldn't care less. More power to him if that's what it took to fulfill his dream of being a filmmaker.

Everyone in this world has dreams, very few actually follow them.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I don't want to rehash it forever, but I don't see a business in what you intend.

I'm sure of that.

Look, I'm just talking about making a living... not friggin' worldwide theatrical etc. A LOT of little movies have made plenty of money and get seen by a few hundred thousand people. It's just a matter of who's keeping the money.

Right now middlemen take $9+ of every $10 dollars so it appears there is no market.

I bumped into a distributor that made a fortune buying little $200k movies for $5,000. A couple of those movies returned a million dollars. That was probably 15 years ago... but the point remains.

What's changed is the Internet's ability to aggregate groups of people with similar tastes and access them for very little money. What's not changed is artists are the world's worst business people who can only see things in terms of theatrical and traditional distribution.

That'll change. There's a generation of youtubers coming that get it.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

Maybe he made porn at some point, just like Francis Ford Coppola

I guess he owns it and it's still operating:
http://www.innocentpictures.com/default.htm

 

[Joel Chu]

I have to agree with JPP. Like a few of my previous post. Those "no" budget movies I was involved with are all for "calling card" purpose. I knew right from the beginning that is not going to make money back - unless they win some prestigious awards. Which I think winning the Euro million is easier.

As for the audience. What do they want? Nobody knows this always hold truth.

I have done a very interesting experiment (My current job is a consultant, so I get a chance to move around different companies). Make a conversation with some office workers - dream up a name of a movie, or one you are making. See what they will ask.

Majority of them - Who is in it?
Some of them - What is it about?

Try it yourself. Don't ask film students or anyone remotely know how to make a movies ask everyday audience. Its harsh but it's truth.

If you want to play the number game. I happen to meet someone last year in Cannes, who own a cinema chain that sold 1 billion tickets in 2007 yes you read it right, 1 billion tickets. That represent 80% of the Chinese population on average go to see one movie per year. Although the ticket price is low compare to the western world. But it's a number game. That make this two brothers among the richest people in China (it's strange that movies business favour brothers team )

Do you think you have something that can crack this market?

P.S. I do like the idea that cross promote each other, let me have a think and I might able to come up with something

 

[jpp]

It doesn't matter whether you hated the film or not, the film's success stands as a testament that it can be done. A lot of people did enjoy it. To me, a film like "Once" has 10 times more credibility than your average Hollywood film. I didn't love "Once," but I thought it was watchable. And like I said, the music was sort of catchy.

The difficulty here, as with the success of many other no-budget indies like Clerks or The Brothers McMullen, is that (if you don't like them) it's hard to see anything meaningful in their success, except that audiences aren't very discriminating, and reward all the wrong movies, whether Hollywood or indie.

But my rant was a rant against belief in the business model. Individual filmmakers may well succeed, in the sense that they have an opportunity to make another and maybe better financed film. Somebody does succeed in this way, virtually every year. Whether the success is deserved or whether this mechanism promotes excellence, is another question. Sometimes it is, sometimes it aint.

 

[jpp]

Do you think you have something that can crack this market?

The irony here -- and after this, this I promise to shut up for a while -- is that China has a very vibrant and creative indie film scene which most Chinese never see (for export only). The Chinese public wants the same action pictures and the same sentimental romantic comedies as everyone else.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Majority of them - Who is in it?
Some of them - What is it about?

The fact that they say "who's in it" means absolutely nothing in terms of what motivates people to see most movies. It's just an obvious thing to say and they are making conversation.

Who's in Watchmen? I don't have a clue. Who was in Superbad? Breakfast Club? Friends, Sex in the City, Terminator, Rocky etc. No real big names at the time these movies came out. The number is in the hundreds...and this is despite the fact the Hollywood is very, very star centric. The number of movies that have made money with unknowns is in the thousands over the years.

It's the story idea combined with word of mouth that gets people to go. After they go to the movie they fall in love with characters and buy People magazine to read about them.

Try this while you're experimenting. Ask people about 2 movies... one's got a star like John Travolta in a boring drama and the other is a new superhero movie or thriller with no stars. See which one people would rather see.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The difficulty here, as with the success of many other no-budget indies like Clerks or The Brothers McMullen, is that (if you don't like them) it's hard to see anything meaningful in their success, except that audiences aren't very discriminating, and reward all the wrong movies, whether Hollywood or indie.

But my rant was a rant against belief in the business model. Individual filmmakers may well succeed, in the sense that they have an opportunity to make another and maybe better financed film. Somebody does succeed in this way, virtually every year. Whether the success is deserved or whether this mechanism promotes excellence, is another question. Sometimes it is, sometimes it aint.

What about Memento? You know that Nolan made that after a successful short done for pennies. You liked Memento, didn't you? I doubt there are many in the industry who did not at least respect that film. We've had this conversation before, but Aronofsky did the same exact thing. These are proof that it can happen if you have talent and luck. These are guys who were rewarded for quality and perseverance. The system did work in their case. Malick also made it through the system. He is living proof. WKW made a name for himself wordwide with a lot of pictures that were shot on tiny budgets.

The main thing to realize is that the odds of it happening are incredibly slim. Same odds as becoming a rock star, famous poet, best-selling novelist, etc.

What is your main point, jpp? How would you change the system. We know that you don't like the current mess, and probably most us agree with you. Just wondering what your solution is?

How all this internet stuff will play out, no one is sure quite yet. It seems to me that micro-transactions or paypal-type small payments of a couple of dollars in exchange for clean, legal, super-fast download of 1080p movies is probably the way of the future. That might be a way for a very select few with extremely good material to "break through."

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

What about Memento? You know that Nolan made that after a successful short done for pennies.

Are you talkin about following (feature film---75 mins or so / black and white).
budget was under 50k...guess never made the money back

but, the big but, was that a producer liked what he was doing and gave him the money to do memento, which is imho a modern masterpiece.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Are you talkin about following (feature film---75 mins or so / black and white).
budget was under 50k...guess never made the money back

but, the big but, was that a producer liked what he was doing and gave him the money to do memento, which is imho a modern masterpiece.

the point is that both Nolan and Aronofsky started out with tiny films on tiny budgets that made an impact at film festivals, and got them attention, then they made another pic with more money, and so on. that's the way the system is supposed to work. and in their cases, it did. jpp often seems to paint a picture that the system never works properly.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

what aranofsky and nolan did:

they had NO money and NO star, so the STORY had to be the STAR.

---i guess everybody in the world should agree, they succeded.

and people shouldnt forget, if a small budget movie with an amazing story is made for 30k, its better than beeing made for 300 000k.

Why?

it is just a better marketing tool for the distributor.
just made for...or
made for the record budget of... or
did sell his organs to shoot with the budget of...or



sounds 1000 times better than...

made for small indy bugdet in the $$$$$$ range.

 

[Tom Lowe]

sure, if a tiny-budget movie can be made that kicks ass, its street cred will be through the roof. people can respect that, and rightfully so.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

another kick ass 40k usd movie is the white sound by hans weingartner.

 

[Joel Chu]

The irony here -- and after this, this I promise to shut up for a while -- is that China has a very vibrant and creative indie film scene which most Chinese never see (for export only). The Chinese public wants the same action pictures and the same sentimental romantic comedies as everyone else.

That is very true I have been collecting those bannned movies from China for a while now. But something I think way too many people forget that movies is a main stream entertainment. When we are talking about business here - then we have to look at the hard numbers , not sentimental value.

About my experiment. If you think its only conversation then you might be missing something; heard of - Content is no longer the king, the conversation is.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I think the additional thing that's happening is people really have been picked up by an agent/manager etc. based on work shown on the Internet. Having a popular Internet movie will be better than a decent festival outing soon. Probably already is.

Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Video Blog comes to mind. That little movie made money.

I'd like to see an experiment where a small movie is put online for viewing for free, asks for ticket donations, and offers a Blu-Ray for sale.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Content is no longer the king, the conversation is.

If conversation is King then that is an argument for why word of mouth - ie social networking in niches - is more powerful than all the marketing Hollywood can throw at us.

The movie has to be worth having a conversation about like those 9-11 documentaries. Loose Change got picked up for distribution while still being free on the Internet.

 

[jpp]

What is your main point, jpp? How would you change the system. We know that you don't like the current mess, and probably most us agree with you. Just wondering what your solution is.

None of this satisfies me, so I guess that's my point. It would be hard, or just plain idiotic, to grudge somebody like Christopher Nolan success, since he performed a miracle. He made a watchable technically accomplished no-budget feature -- Following -- and then a highly successful low-budget feature (Memento) which keeps your brain working for its entire running time, no small feat, followed by big budget well-crafted Hollywood features, as good or maybe better than anyone else is doing at present. But apart from production values, Batman bores me to death.

What we're missing, if anyone's asking, is an alternative art cinema in the U.S.. We're talking about professionally produced films in the $500K to $3 million range, which open other windows. About as good as it gets, in the U.S. indie world, is Frozen River, and there's a lot to admire in that film. But, for me, this work and work like it doesn't satisfy a hunger for what we'll have to call, with a certain embarrassment, vertical transcendence, the mystic or occult comforts of art.

There's simply no way to make this stuff in the U.S. -- next to impossible on garage budgets, and truly impossible to finance on larger ones. We're not necessarily talking about a rarefied or artsy-fartsy approach to the material. This needn't be Antonioni or Bergman, or feature conversations about Kant or Hegel, or characters who sound like oracles, or self-conscious photography. Like porn, you know art when you see it. And I don't see it in the U.S.

As for the solution, I've offered one many times before -- public funding. But that's an impossibility in the U.S., so it's no solution at all. Maybe the best thing is to stop going to the movies.

 

[Joel Chu]

Also very true, look at what 4 eyes monster did all I am saying is this - it's a whole new world out there. We will find new way. At the same time , don't forget there is the monster machines been around for many many years AKA the establishment. If that is a viable finance income for them, they will come all over it (look at what happened those so-called majors independent division, I am glad they fold ...) Hey don't forget there is a Lloyd Kauffman still kicking and screaming.

I am not for the studio or against the studio. I am only saying that this is a very interesting time. Nothing is sure.

Also, some tibits. Don't know if anyone heard of a movie call "Yang Ying River" it came out about 10 years ago. Banned by the Chinese government for 10 years. The director carry on making 4 movies, funny enough the movie was public release in China for the first time couple years back. So nothing is set in stone. Even the RED turns around

Back up JPP about "Once" yes it was fund purely by grant, and Irish Film council give them the finish money. And interesting note, Bank of Ireland is the only major bank in UK / Ireland has a special film division and it's run by some very smart / film literal people. But I must add that - the UK film councils has produce enormous amount of rubbish every year. Go check out Chris Jones blog and see what he has to say (Just in case, you don't know who Chris is - he is the writer of Guerilla film maker handbook). I don't want to say anything publicly about Film Council (although the chance I win the lotto is better than getting money from film council) anyway. Public money or no public money? Its always left to debate.

 

[Tom Lowe]

As for the solution, I've offered one many times before -- public funding. But that's an impossibility in the U.S., so it's no solution at all. Maybe the best thing is to stop going to the movies.

Who gets to decide what is worthy? A panel of government experts?

Would they have chosen Memento?