Hollywood and the script market

[Craig Parkes]

In New Zealand, which I think has a fairly unique movie going climate, the key demographic for small cinemas is older women.

All these cinemas offer high end cafe/restaurant facilities, almost all have alcohol licenses, they offer nice seats and they play art house movies that do not compete for the teenage audience at all.

They play matinee and evening films and do very well from them. They are a place where older, educated women and men whose children are now adult go to enjoy themselves and have a chat before and after as well as some wine and nice food.

I am SURE that in the right cities in other countries, a well setup chain of specialist theaters set up to target this audience SPECIFICALLY could do quite well. You would need a certain level of population density of the right communities and you would need to STRINGENTLY cater to this market and advertise the whole concept (it sort of evolved naturally here out of traditional art house, I think in other countries marketing the idea of going to the cinema to older women may be a bit of a struggle at first but I think it could do very well.)

Make the movie going experience an awesome one, with screening times and movies that cater to this demographic, and I imagine in most countries you will find repeat custom with very little advertising cost - it's mostly in word of mouth and generating what would be to this audience a must have repeat experience.

Main stream multiplexes don't and can't offer this, they cater to wide.

In this example, if teenagers EVER show up to your theater without being accompanied by a parent or grandparent, then you'd be doing something very wrong.

 

[Liam Hall]

I actually do think that it is far more a knee jerk reaction by some people against the egalitarian nature of the summer blockbuster. The most vociferous seem to have a visceral aversion to the grossly popular more so than a dislike of the banal and insipid.

Blockbusters aren't egalitarian, quite the opposite. That's the point. Yes, there are some people who'll moan about any successful picture, not me I like all kinds of movie.

As for the studio executives being lazy and gutless, put yourself in their shoes. You have the responsibility of investing hundreds of millions of dollars. The last 20 indie films that you know of lost money or barely broke...

Once again, mine is not an argument about blockbuster versus indie, it's about good practice versus bad.

There are many blockbusters that have good scripts, good storytelling and are made with talented people who understand cinema and there are even more indie films that are made with bad scripts, bad story telling and talentless people.

Seriously, I see the big screen as a larger than life experience that is just better suited for a larger than life movie. The more intimate "life sized" 50 to 100 inch screen puts the drama on a more even footing with the action.

Big bang equals big screen; I know what you are getting at, but for me it would be a terrible shame if the only films available to watch at the cinema were two-hour infomercials that sell games, toys and burgers. Cinema can do a hell of lot more.

From a business perspective, the only reason to put these small films into traditional theatres is contractual obligation or for Academy consideration. By their very nature they are niche films with a smaller audience that rarely warrants the cost and effort to put them up on the big screens.

It's funny because before Jaws came along, that's exactly how cinema worked. Now we have far less choice and often no choice at all.

If we want a middle ground, the content creators need to lower their expectations and embrace small scale digital distribution using variations on mobmov or micro-cinema with consumer grade equipment and more intimate venues.

So, if we don't like Asteroids we accept a low grade option? What kind of rationale is that?

I think that the system should break down into a more layered delivery with traditional cinema carrying the "larger" films that have a reasonable expectation of at least breaking even when they open on 500 plus screens- and the "smaller" films going out to an ad hoc network of 20-30 seat micro-cinemas in art galleries, community centres and the back rooms of coffee shops, book stores and projected onto the exterior of your local Wal-Mart.

Too funny, can you imagine watching Cinema Paradiso in Starbucks? There are multiplexes everywhere, why not use the distribution network that already exists? I'll tell you why, because the studios are monopolizing the market - less choice equals a better chance for them to make their money. They have little incentive to make a great film, but a big incentive to make a good marketing campaign.

I agree, that new technology has a role to play, as it has already impacted on the music industry and it will certainly be interesting to see how that plays out. But lets not confuse that with the short-sighted business practices that are slowly killing cinema.

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

"I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch..."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Hmmmm, I have a feeling you know exactly what I'm talking about, or moreover you know exactly the point I'm making but are just being melodramatic to make your own point.

It's true I don't know what the multiplexes are like in the states, all I can say is in my own part of the world it's not tooo bad. Yes, the multiplexes are heavily weighted towards the latest hollywood horse shit, but there are plenty of exceptions.

The main point I want to make is quite simple: I don't think there should be any widening of the divide between 'mainstream' and 'arthouse'. I think it's a real shame that this determines how films are marketed and distributed. Because, as I'm sure a lot of people here agree, both mainstream and arthouse have about an equal ratio of shit-to-gold.

I just feel that to start moving the arthouse or 'indie' films into art galleries, community centres, coffee shops etc. would further feed into this idea that films should be sharply classified by their content, purpose etc.

I prefer things the way they are now, because I know - having worked as a projectionist in both mainstream cinemas and "the largest arthouse cinema in the southern hemisphere" - that it doesn't make much financial sense for cinemas to try to cater to all tastes, there has to be a degree of specialisation. I just don't really want to see these specialisation go further and create and even greater divide between mainstream and arthouse.

 

[David Rasberry]

The main point I want to make is quite simple: I don't think there should be any widening of the divide between 'mainstream' and 'arthouse'. I think it's a real shame that this determines how films are marketed and distributed. Because, as I'm sure a lot of people here agree, both mainstream and arthouse have about an equal ratio of shit-to-gold.
I just feel that to start moving the arthouse or 'indie' films into art galleries, community centres, coffee shops etc. would further feed into this idea that films should be sharply classified by their content, purpose etc.

I agree with you in principle, but the fact is these divisions already exist, at least here in the States. For most independent films there is very little market opportunity and the barriers to mainstream theatrical distribution are high. A vibrant sophisticated small venue market would give a lot of films that don't get a chance now a shot at developing an audience, and returning their costs. potentially moving to major distribution if the response is favorable.
There is always YouTube, but how are you going to make a buck on that? Cable and satellite TV in the US is mostly controlled by the same 5 or 6 media conglomerates that also control theatrical distribution. The path to potentially broad audiences is through a soda straw. We need more straws.

 

[Erik Widding]

I have a fanstastic idea for IP they should buy for a film franchise:

You know...for kids!

Hadn't thought about that movie in awhile. Simple idea evolves into a great story.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHY8NKj3RKs

Minesweeper the movie.

 

[Liam Hall]

"It: the movie"

They made "Them", so why not?

 

[Joe G.]

"It's true I don't know what the multiplexes are like in the states, all I can say is in my own part of the world it's not tooo bad."

Cities have more diversity in films, venues.

Small towns and rural are at the mercy of a couple of chains that serve up glittering, explosive sewage on tap.

The "Multiplexes" have the same 8 movies, the "top 8" and that's it. If you're not in the "top 8" or perhaps 10-12, depending on the area, then you don't have a chance to get seen.

I would have to travel more than 200 miles to find an "art house."

 

[Clint Johnson]

Seen in micro-cinemas or not seen at all?

Seen in micro-cinemas or not seen at all?

To me, and yes it is a gross over-simplification, homogenisation of content and distribution just seems to be the general trend in entertainment in the west. Personally I can't imagine many people would be brave enough to invest capital in creating a whole new infrastructure for distributing independent films.

The beauty of this is that the capital outlay is up to you.

1) If you have the money and want to take the movies to the people, you could spend about $12,000 for a Sharp XG-P560W that can blast out 5200 lumens onto a convenient exterior wall. It isn't a 1080p projector and it only has an 1800:1 contrast ratio but this is all about getting the movies to the biggest audience you can and for that, the light output is king and that means you can get away with feeding it A/V from your laptop or a portable DVD player. Add in a $200 short range FM transmitter, $500 for an inverter to get your car's 12volt to 110 AC and you have your own drive in- wherever you drive in to. Total outlay would be around $15,000.

2) For those with deep pockets and a smaller venue where image and audio is paramount, you can control the light and you don't have to go much bigger than a ten or twelve foot screen- the JVC DLA-RS10 is tough to beat and costs about $5,000. Another $2,500 on a great Stewart StudioTek screen, $4,500 on a Denon DVD-A1UDCI BluRay player, $7,500 for a Denon AVP-A1HDCI(A) Home Theater reciever, $10,000 on a set of Klipsch THX Ultra2 7.1 surround sound speakers and you have a small theatre that has an image and audio quality that surpasses any but the best cinemas. Total outlay is still under $30,000.

3) If you are on a tighter budget, the $5,000 JVC DLA-RS10 can be projected onto a more pocket friendly Elite EZ-Frame White screen for $500, pushed by the entry level Denon DVD-1800BD player for $300, hooked up to the Denon DHT-789BA A/V Receiver and Speaker package for $1000 and you are looking at a good image with compromised sound. This setup is around $6,800.

4) The collective of starving artist option is something like a Sanyo PLV-Z700 projector for $1800 (still 1080p at that price!), $230 gets you a Goo paint package for a permanent screen, play the BluRay off last years Sony BDPS350 which can be found for under $170 and can be connected up to the Sony HT-SS2300 receiver/speaker system for $400. Nobody is going to mistake it for option #2 above but it will still look and sound better than what most people have at home... for $2,600. Ten of you give up coffee and cigarettes for a month and you've got your equipment.

However I don't know if it would necessarily be a good thing to take smaller, more independent films out of the theatres and place them in technically inferior, ad hoc pretend-theatres in art galleries and community centres. Imagine how much MORE stigma would be attached to "art" or "indie" films were they to make such a shift?!

I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch. It gives all of the content equal legitimacy.

Personally I'm not very comfortable with horse shit like Transformers, G.I. Joe or Asteroids attaining an implicit superiority that better theatres will confer.

I don't believe that there can be any more stigma attached to "art" or "indie" film than there already is... 95% plus of the population isn't even aware of the existence of any particular art film and wouldn't care about them if they did- so there is no mindshare for them to lose. This wouldn't take any films out of the theatres, if they are of large enough appeal, they will get their theatrical distribution. This would be for the vast majority of art and indie films that never see the inside of any theatre and never will if the barrier to entry is kept at 50 foot screens and >300 seats.

It's true I don't know what the multiplexes are like in the states, all I can say is in my own part of the world it's not tooo bad. Yes, the multiplexes are heavily weighted towards the latest hollywood horse shit, but there are plenty of exceptions.

The main point I want to make is quite simple: I don't think there should be any widening of the divide between 'mainstream' and 'arthouse'. I think it's a real shame that this determines how films are marketed and distributed. Because, as I'm sure a lot of people here agree, both mainstream and arthouse have about an equal ratio of shit-to-gold.

I just feel that to start moving the arthouse or 'indie' films into art galleries, community centres, coffee shops etc. would further feed into this idea that films should be sharply classified by their content, purpose etc.

I prefer things the way they are now, because I know - having worked as a projectionist in both mainstream cinemas and "the largest arthouse cinema in the southern hemisphere" - that it doesn't make much financial sense for cinemas to try to cater to all tastes, there has to be a degree of specialisation. I just don't really want to see these specialisation go further and create and even greater divide between mainstream and arthouse.

The cinemas in America and Canada run almost exclusively studio distributed films that are expected to top a certain per screen average. It is tilted a bit in Canada with the government sticking its nose into yet another business but by and large, especially outside large metropolitan areas, you will never see an art or indie film inside a "legitimate" theatre.

Hell, the nearest town to me has had the theatre sitting silent since last summer and I could probably buy it for not much more than the cost of the renovations that were put into it in the months leading up to its closure let alone the land and building... the theatre business is borderline enough without putting movies up on the screen that are pretty much guaranteed to get less than the financial break even point of twenty people in the seats (for that particular theatre). If it can't keep the doors open with Batman and Ironman in its corner what chance does it have showing unknown art films?

Right now, the nearest "Art House Theatre" is over a thousand kilometre drive from my front door. That is the reality we are living with and I think that could be changed with these micro-cinemas.

 

[David Rasberry]

"It: the movie"

They made "Them", so why not?

Been done.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099864/

 

[Clint Johnson]

"...more small venues, or a different dist model for the small venus already showing small films, would open up significant opportunity."

The ability to show all sorts of content digitally, and not have to run the same film over and over all day for a week will help somewhat (maybe).

The lowering price of projection systems and audio to create a profitable smaller venue will definitely help.

The question is: why would they choose some little movie they never heard of instead of re-running Jurassic Park or Star Wars, or things that have been marketed everywhere?

No, the question is why would YOU show Jurassic Park or Star Wars? This isn't a solution for them, it is a solution for you and your back yard.

I like the idea of places with liquor licenses showing films, as you can make a date out of it. Not saying they'll want to see YOUR film on their date, but it's possible.

I've been considering what it would take to create a small "art house" theater here in my town. Probably not a good business venture -- unless there's a Monster Truck Channel I can subscribe to.

You can find the venues that have a liquor license already or you can finagle a special use, time limited permit in most municipalities. Put together the system you can afford (I gave some options in my previous post) and start calling the film makers and what few indie distributors there are out there and ask them how much they would charge for a single public performance of the film.

There isn't a trampled path to follow here and you will find some pitfalls that could be covered in a website dedicated to this- but it is up to the folks on the ground to implement this.

 

[David Rasberry]

Personally I can't imagine many people would be brave enough to invest capital in creating a whole new infrastructure for distributing independent films.

Since I design digital projection systems for a living, I can say that there are a lot of facilities, educational and public facilities, schools, libraries, museums, and even a surprising number of coffee house theaters that already have the necessary installations, maybe not the latest and greatest HD, but certainly adequate for starters.

What is lacking these days is the digital equivalent of the 16mm film distributors that existed back in the 60's and 70's to specifically serve such small commercial venues. The license and fee requirements are different from home movie distribution. Rental fees were typically either fixed or based on some formula for seat count and/or number of showings. For simplicity, ticket sales were not a factor.
The other limitation is that the only common distribution format is DVD. If we show a movie on DVD at the local coffe house cinema, we have to buy the home version then call a theatrical distributor and pay a rental license fee for commercial use, which depending on the film may or may not be available.
It can be hard to track down good original indie films with enough marketing and word of mouth support to promote for a local audience.
What is needed is a reasonably low cost, secure, high quality HD or 2k distribution format (not BluRay) for second tier commercial release. (Red Ray anyone?).
The new Auteur film streaming website might offer something of an alternative, but the quality of streamed video at this point in time is going to be generally unacceptable for large screen viewing. It is possible to lease satellite time for scheduled distribution, but that is expensive.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Blockbusters aren't egalitarian, quite the opposite. That's the point. Yes, there are some people who'll moan about any successful picture, not me I like all kinds of movie.

I was probably not using egalitarian in a clear manner there. I was going with the theatre chains being egalitarian in the input, not the results. The only way to get art films into the theatre is to grossly and unfairly weight the desires and opinions of the one person in a hundred thousand who would rather see a Kieślowski film than an Apatow film.

Once again, mine is not an argument about blockbuster versus indie, it's about good practice versus bad.

There are many blockbusters that have good scripts, good storytelling and are made with talented people who understand cinema and there are even more indie films that are made with bad scripts, bad story telling and talentless people.

I wasn't specifically calling you out but your qualification of "good practice versus bad" begs the question of who is defining these practises and on what criteria are they based? Large theatres require a large outlay in money to open and operate. They will base their practises on what keeps putting food in front of their kids and paychecks in their employees hands. Films require an even larger outlay of cash and if you want to keep making films you can't make too many films that lose money.

We will not agree with a lot of the decisions that these big studio executives make and I'm sure that a lot of them are driven far more by fear and desperation than by cool calculated pandering to the audience.

The people who put up the money are the ones making the decisions of what is good practise and what is bad- all I'm suggesting is that we find a way to lower the barrier to entry so that individuals who have an aesthetic outside the majority can engage in a practise that is financially bad for that majority but emotionally good for that individual. It may be a money losing proposition for that individual but it will be at a level that can be sustained.

Big bang equals big screen; I know what you are getting at, but for me it would be a terrible shame if the only films available to watch at the cinema were two-hour infomercials that sell games, toys and burgers. Cinema can do a hell of lot more.

I really don't think that this idea for mico-cinema will take any shows out of the theatre. I think that it would give a venue to thousands of films that would otherwise languish un-distributable as well as extend the public viewing of the "lucky" hundreds of films after they get the limited release on less than a hundred screens.

It's funny because before Jaws came along, that's exactly how cinema worked. Now we have far less choice and often no choice at all.

Trying to revive the long dead corpse of cinema past hasn't gotten us very far. It might not be to everyone's liking and I'm certainly not saying that it is THE answer- but micro-cinema at least puts A answer into your hands.

So, if we don't like Asteroids we accept a low grade option? What kind of rationale is that?

I think we need to realize that unless we become major studio executives, there is not much we can do about movies like Asteroids other than not go to see them. My -$10 vote isn't going to count for much compared to the studio executive's $100 million dollar vote.

Too funny, can you imagine watching Cinema Paradiso in Starbucks? There are multiplexes everywhere, why not use the distribution network that already exists? I'll tell you why, because the studios are monopolizing the market - less choice equals a better chance for them to make their money. They have little incentive to make a great film, but a big incentive to make a good marketing campaign.

The distribution network that exists doesn't want Cinema Paradiso and you can't force them to take it. What kind of a reception do you think you would get today for a movie with an opening weekend of $25,899? Funny or not, you would have a far easier time getting a local coffee shop to allow you to set up in the back room to show this movie than you would have talking any distributor into getting Cinema Paradiso back into a theatre chain.

I whole heartedly agree that the balance has swung too far toward the marketing side of the ledger, giving short shrift to the actual content of the film. We can hope that the box office failure of the most egregious of these films will feed back to the studio and bring things more in balance. I like me some big explosions and gratuitous nudity as much as the next guy- but for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster please embed that in a great story!

I agree, that new technology has a role to play, as it has already impacted on the music industry and it will certainly be interesting to see how that plays out. But lets not confuse that with the short-sighted business practices that are slowly killing cinema.

I think that "killing cinema" may be overstating things a little and is skewed by the filter of time. I think we have a predisposition to forget the bad and distill the good whenever we look to the past (or the opposite for the emotionally damaged and nihilistic amongst us). People look wistfully back at the pre-blockbuster era and they tend to forget that more than 90% of the movies created back then were unmitigated crap.

There is also the problem of talent dilution today. There is now more content created weekly than there was annually in decades past. Talent is now spread through ten times as many films and a hundred times as many television shows. That may have caused unmitigated crap to climb above the traditional 90% to 95% but it still leaves a lot of quality work... it is just lost in the marketing cacophony that surrounds the most vacuous of tentpole wannabes as they try to cover the fetid smell of cinematic crap to get as many people into the theatre on opening weekend before word of mouth can sink it.

Meanwhile it may behove us to actually step into the fray and do something about it rather than stand on the sidelines and hope that, because word of mouth now travels at the speed of Twitter it will create a positive feedback loop toward more quality film making.

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

wow clint, it sounds like you've already researched and thought about this in great detail. what i want to know is why don't you have a crack at something like this?

btw i'm NOT being sarcastic, actually quite genuine (it's stupid but you gotta say it, people always misinterpret your intentions).

i'm still very very iffy about digital projection, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. i only say this because i am a projectionist, and whilst i've tried very hard to cultivate an appreciation for digital projection, i just prefer the look of projected celluloid. i also prefer watching the images projected on a huge screen that makes me feel small and insignificant, and increases my engagement with the material. i really, really don't think the content, ie. multiplex fodder with lots of explosions versus understated arthouse flick, should have any bearing on the size of the screen.

i was tech-checking a print of the new jarmusch film limits of control the other day and as i sat down and watched the last couple minutes, with a beautiful handheld shot tracking the protagonist from behind, i just thought 'this size is right'. it felt right to have it projected on such a large screen. it occupied the majority of my visual field and immersed me in the fake reality. in fact i'm tempted to suggest you could argue the opposite, that bigger screens are MORE important for arthouse fare, because if you think about watching some very slow, intimate scene, imagine tarkovsky or kurosawa or any of the other wonderful 'art' films i've seen over the years, the pacing lends itself to a more visually immersive experience. it's much easier to adapt to slow visual/dramatic rhythms when it is occupying all of your attention, as opposed to say on a large television screen ten feet away. no? discuss!

as much as i totally agree with the argument that smaller indie films should create a new market and infrastructure for distribution, it makes me very sad to think it will be necessary to shift them onto smaller screens with, in my opinion, inferior projection.

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

another point entirely, but has this been raised at all yet in this thread? it is:

how are we defining arthouse/indie films? where are we drawing the line?

there are very robust 'arthouse' and 'independent' film distributors, like focus features, fox searchlight (who had the arthouse juggernaut, scumdog, which was basically a licence to print money!) who do big bucks.

technically their stuff is by no means mainstream. it is not multiplex fodder. but nor is it ultra low-budget indie. a lot of their stuff comes from very well established and highly respected directors.

surely these films don't qualify for this art gallery/coffee house scheme? or do they?

discuss! :001_rolleyes:








FOX SEARCHLIGHT:

scumdog
full monty
sideways
little miss sunshine
juno
girl 6
boys don't cry
bend it like beckham
28 days later (love this one! i also love it how danny boyle doesn't stick to one genre)
napoleon dynamite
garden state
thank you for smoking
the darjeeling limited
the wrestler

and.... ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT: THE MOVIE (!!!!) (in 'pre-production'!)


FOCUS FEATURES:

brokeback mountain
traffic
being john malkovich
billy elliot
far from heaven
the pianist
lost in translation
21 grams
eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
motorcycle diaries
broken flowers
constant gardener
burn after reading
milk


then you've got your local distributors, some examples that spring to mind for my part of the world, australia, are hopscotch and madman.

HOPSCOTCH:

2046
bowling for columbine
dave chappelle's block party
easy virtue
elegy
fahrenheit 9/11
the magician
pan's labyrinth
rescue dawn
rize
shortbus
transamerica
vicky cristina barcelona
what just happened? (loved this one, why did it do so poorly, i just don't understand)

 

[David Rasberry]

another point entirely, but has this been raised at all yet in this thread? it is:

how are we defining arthouse/indie films? where are we drawing the line?


discuss! :001_rolleyes:

Why should we draw a line? The line is drawn by the majors for the films that get picked up for commercial distro.
There were what? 5000 full length features submitted to Sundance this year, out of which 125 get picked for the festival and maybe a third of those get major distribution?
A cult film that comes to mind is Harold & Maude, released in 1971. It got panned by the critics and wound up in limited distribution with little promotion. Over time it succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. I saw this at the time in a 250 seat locally owned art house cinema.
Another popular current program for small venues is the Live at the Met series: Live monthly HD broadcasts of Metropolitan Opera performances via a private satellite channel subscription model to properly equipped HD digital theaters only. I am upgrading a local performing arts center system to support this series for next year.
I am sure there is a lot of out of the ordinary content that is highly entertaining for open minded sophisticated audiences, mostly more mature well educated people, who flock to see such programs when they are made available. Most of it typically won't even show up on cable or satellite channels. There is not one audience or market, there are multiple audiences and markets that for the most part are not being served at all.

 

[Liam Hall]

Why should we draw a line? The line is drawn by the majors for the films that get picked up for commercial distro.

The line is easy to draw. If your film helps sell burgers and toys it's a commercial film. If not it's an art-house indie film.

I agree with many of Clint's points, but I wouldn't want to be the guy to tell Martin Scorsese that his latest film isn't commercial enough for mainstream cinema and folk will have to go watch it at Starbucks.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think we're going to see subscription esque models evolve out as piracy doesn't evaporate.

Netflix on Demand is a good example of future distribution. I think on demand subscription is a great opportunity for smaller producers because the cost of entry is $0 above what they're already paying to see Starship Troopers and Zoolander.

The big movies will still be popular but people might flip on something they've never heard of that sounds interesting. That's a far more likely scenario than spending money on an unknown DVD.

I have a Zunepass with unlimited music. I download a lot more indie artists now because if it's crap I just delete it.

Big studio work would bring people in to the rental plan but they might leave with little miss sunshine. I watched King of California two weeks ago on Netflix OnDemand. It was unlikely I would buy or rent it. But I watched it and I'm sure they got a little revenue in return where they wouldn't have otherwise.

If it's a movie you already like then you probably want to own it instead of renting and it's not a lost DVD sale.

 

[David Rasberry]

A few months ago I attended a showing of a compilation of festival award winning short films. 600 seat house at the local performing arts center. It was packed. I expected to be bored, but every one of thes shorts was entertaining and compelling to watch. There is also a social aspect of going to a public event that is missing from personal viewing by whatever means.
Tickets were $6. That's $3600 from one showing. 100 similar showings around the country gets $360,000. If the 9 filmmakers get to split half of that, its $20k each. Probably enough to cover much of the production costs for these films. Small venue distribution could give a lot of filmmakers a chance to make their costs as well as promote downloads and DVD sales, just as major distribution does for theatrical releases. Many indie films don't necessarily need a mass audience to work, they just need AN audience.

 

[Joe G.]

"Many indie films don't necessarily need a mass audience to work, they just need AN audience. "

Does anyone know what Netflix's cut is back to the filmmaker?

Almost all the films I see nowadays are Netflix rentals.