Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

How to make money from internet distribution of movies?

Tom said:
The trouble is, people like to watch movies in full screen... and in HD now. They don't want some Burger King ad sitting in the corner of the screen. Plus, they like to "own" a copy of the movie, whether that means a little plastic disc or an MKV file on their harddrive.
Click to expand...


Tom, that's actually, exactly what I mean. People will download and own the full movie in BluRay quality. You know how good x264 copies can be. :) Codec technology is evolving very fast [especially now that RED claims to put 2hrs of 4K in a DVD9, OMG!.. How?! :)]

The only limitation right now is download speeds. When we get 3-5 MB\sec. download speed in most homes, then all this could work.

Take a look on this page:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ddNRTy_bt_o&feature=rec-fresh

A regular YouTube page.

Imagine a similar site, which hosts music and movies. You watch a trailer of the film or a music vid for the song. Then, if you're interested, there would be a download link that you click and you get the song or film in full quality [under 10 mins. for a BluRay quality film with 5 MB\s. download].

Now, the only difference would be a banner above the title and, maybe, a short 3-10 sec. ad clip in the beginning of the film.

The ads gotta be un-annoying, cause otherwise people will be frustrated and will not visit the site and the page.

Just a nice exclusive banner above the title and [maybe] a short 5 sec. "supported by" clip in the beginning of the movie.

No banners appearing in the corner and no commercial breaks during the movie, these are super-annoying practices.

If it's a song or an album, I also wouldn't put ads inside the song, cause this is extremely annoying too. Only a banner above the title, for music downloads.

And... the company's got nothing to lose, cause they'll have to give you money, only if your work becomes popular.

They just gotta sign the contract and if your short movie was downloaded by 10 000 people, they give you the negotiated amount.

If by 100 000 people - another [bigger] amount.

If by 1 000 000 people - another [very nice] amount. :)

And of course the hosting site [Vuze for example ;)], gets a percent of the deal, if the movie becomes popular. If the movie doesn't become popular - noone gets nothing. Fair.

Of course, all these amounts would be different for Spielberg. :)

But, it's a start.

And if you got 1 successful movie... then next contract will be sweeter.

And so on...
 
When it comes to selling your film online for profit Its all about knowing your market. Your drama passion project is 99% at a disadvantage to someone elses sci-fi action series. Take The Silent City and A Lonely Sky. Both amazing short films by two amazing artists. A lonely Sky doesnt even have half the total eyeballs that The Silent City has and is a more complete story! Both have perfectly integrated visual Effects, a shit ton of production value and some great talent to boot. If your attempting to make a web splash keep these things in mind. I 100% enjoyed The Silent City much more as a viewer but appreciate both films equally as a filmmaker.
As far as selling Blu-Ray movies for less and trying to sell more copies I am a bit skeptical of that tactic. The studios are in business to make money, not give away their films. Unfortunately, the same people who pirate films and or demand a less expensive web premium are the same who could and WILL be directly effected by this as filmmakers down the line. Hollywood is forced to tighten their belts meaning it will be even more competitive and difficult to get into the business creating an even more exclusive club than it already. Personally, as a filmmaker myself, I would rather eat a few extra bucks to purchase the work than contribute to the self-distructing methods of pirated films and see my favorite passtime slowly trickle away. Being a spoiled Internet brat like everyone else I would also rather have the advertisers pay my ticket price than have to pay out of my own pocket. I would rather save mine for more RED stuff!
My two cents with bias :)
 
marcb said:
1. You make a great movie that people want to watch [a docu, short fiction, feature-length fiction, whatever]. You can’t get away without that.
Click to expand...

You put your finger on it, but probably not in the way you intended. There will be never be any way to raise money to make "great movies" unless there's a distribution model which offers a reasonable expectation that investors will get their money back. But there is no such model today, and certainly not on the internet. So whatever non-Hollywood finance there is will be haphazard at best, usually based on the ignorance or vanity of the funders, which hasn't produced many masterpieces.

A world-famous director with access to stars (say, Gus van Sant or John Sayles) can raise maybe $1-$2 million from Hollywood today to make a non-Hollywood movie. For most would-be directors, it would make far more sense to go into an unrelated business and try to finance the film from personal savings, than to spend years looking for money.

Or you can try to make your "great movie" for nothing. But how often has that succeeded?

Without a viable distribution model, there won't, as a rule, be great films, any more than there would be great novels, if only millionaires and media conglomerates could afford paper.
 
Rudi Herbert said:
One problem you will run into with either model, free with ads or pay per view free of ads, is something that runs parallel to "mouth to mouth" phenomenom. Whenever a film gathers steam and the words starts getting around, let's review how that happens. Somebody has downloaded/seen the film and liked it and then starts promoting to kindred spirits. But at that particular point, more and more frequently, these people are more likely to just hand you a CD or a flash drive with a copy of the film for you to watch.
Click to expand...

The way to solve this problem is to stick the ads in the content, and then have a system that notifies a central server when the ads are viewed, so you can bill advertisers. This would require new features to be added to players, but it wouldn't require extensive DRM or anything; most people wouldn't bother to strip the ads out before redistributing the content, because it wouldn't be worth the trouble to avoid watching a 30 second ad or whatever.

With this system it's good when people pass your stuff around between themselves rather than getting it from you. It lowers your bandwidth bills.
 
You don't need a lot of money to make a good film. That's an illusion.

I don't claim that I can do it, but it is possible.

We should all try to climb the ladder.

First, with small, no-budget shorts, one after another, then low-buget shorts :), growing slowly, step by step, getting better,... in time - maybe winning a sponsorship for a low-budget feature. Then for a high-budget feature :), and so on.

At least, that is my plan.

With the RED thingies, we'll be able to achieve much higher visual quality.

And yeah, IMHO, Hollywood can't do anything about the "Spoiled Internet Brat" factor, no matter how tightened the belt is, or how exclusive the "club" becomes.

It's an already lost battle.

And I believe this is a good thing for The Audience.

Whoever loses, the audience wins.

Let me quote His Majesty, Steven Spielberg, again:

I think that the Internet is going to effect the most profound change on the entertainment industries combined. And we're all gonna be tuning into the most popular Internet show in the world, which will be coming from some place in Des Moines. We're all gonna lose our jobs. We're all gonna be on the Internet trying to find an audience.

***

Peers of the World,.... click on my site! :)

Here... Click! Click!

I'm goood!... I'm your maan... :)
 
karapetkov said:
You don't need a lot of money to make a good film. That's an illusion.

I don't claim that I can do it, but it is possible.
Click to expand...

Sort of depends on what you mean by "good", but if you mean a film that's watchable and finds an audience, yes, it's possible, but so rare as to be null. Roberto Rodriquez is probably the best example, but there's a reason he succeeded with a no-budget movie: it was a mass-market exercise in every respect except budget. And in fact that became one the marketing campaigns for El Mariachi -- see a Hollywood movie made for $7K! (plus a few hundred thousand in post, which they often failed to mention).

I wish it was true that you could make a great film for nothing. And there are a few <$10K movies we could point to. But, overall, it's not a sustainable model for film production and hasn't led to a filmmaking meritocracy. Even budgets in the <$200K range haven't led to a meritocracy.

We all remember Coppola's famous prediction about some fat kid in Ohio making a masterpiece with her father's camcorder, but when it came time to produce his own daughter's movie, it was a full-blown 35mm production with Hollywood stars. And whatever he claims to believe about the internet or about the future of the movie business, Spielberg isn't likely to get much competition from Des Moines either, unless audiences lose all interest in spectacle and glamour.
 
The earliest recipe for happiness recorded was by an ancient Greek philosopher (Epicurus). There were only about three points he made, who you eat with, not what you eat, and who sleeps in your house etc The third point he made, lastly, was "avoid all marketing"
 
Red Guy said:
http://modifoo.com/2008/02/27/blu-ray-too-expensive-for-independent-producers.html

http://www.ifc.com/

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/

http://www.indieflix.com

http://www.indiepixfilms.com

http://www.atomfilms.com
Click to expand...

thnx for the post, but produced and distributed movies like the one's on apple.com/trailers are not considered independent after there bought or distributed by production company, any studio company or sub company is not considered indie.
 
jpp said:
Sort of depends on what you mean by "good", but if you mean a film that's watchable and finds an audience, yes, it's possible, but so rare as to be null. Roberto Rodriquez is probably the best example, but there's a reason he succeeded with a no-budget movie: it was a mass-market exercise in every respect except budget. And in fact that became one the marketing campaigns for El Mariachi -- see a Hollywood movie made for $7K! (plus a few hundred thousand in post, which they often failed to mention).

I wish it was true that you could make a great film for nothing. And there are a few <$10K movies we could point to. But, overall, it's not a sustainable model for film production and hasn't led to a filmmaking meritocracy. Even budgets in the <$200K range haven't led to a meritocracy.

We all remember Coppola's famous prediction about some fat kid in Ohio making a masterpiece with her father's camcorder, but when it came time to produce his own daughter's movie, it was a full-blown 35mm production with Hollywood stars. And whatever he claims to believe about the internet or about the future of the movie business, Spielberg isn't likely to get much competition from Des Moines either, unless audiences lose all interest in spectacle and glamour.
Click to expand...


This is all true. But I think that, with things like RED cameras and the Internet, chances will be a bit bigger in the future.

I'm talking about home distribution here, we all know the theater is a completely different thing.
 
jpp said:
Why would movies be any different? Where do these expectations of making money outside established distributions networks come from?
Click to expand...

Maybe from companies like RED making money outside established distribution networks.

The movie "One Six Right" comes to mind. That guy sold 20,000+ copies direct to consumers in advance of the release. He had grossed $400k+ before shipping a unit. There are many other niched titles no one here has ever heard of that made filmmakers money.

Here's another example in book form:
http://gettingreal.37signals.com/toc.php

The book is free on the Internet to read. You can pay for a PDF or Printed version. They've sold many thousands of copies. Who would buy such a thing? People who wanted a hard copy to read on the subway, give to their friends or employees or just support the concept of giving the book away by buying.

In the music business there are many bands that have seen their live gigs become very popular because their music got passed around for free. That doesn't help the Record Label much. A lot of hot new bands aren't signing recording contracts like they used to. They don't need the label's help.

The conventional advice to work for free, be GREAT and eventually get hired in Hollywood isn't a particularly great strategy but that's about the only advice you'll get from your local film school.


I think there are models out there that will end up working but every business is a tough business.
 
real world example

real world example

On Ifilm.com, for free, I stumbled across the first 8 or 9 minutes of Serenity. The opening was so strong that I went out and saw it in the theater. I've also rented it once or twice since.

I had no idea what Firefly was. The strength of the story and the quality of the production were the hook.

Anyone can put up the opening of their film on the net, for free. This necessitates a strong opening that hooks viewers and makes them want to go out and see where your story goes.

The same concept works for a straight to DVD release. You have to go fishing for viewers, and therefore should keep that in mind at the script stage.
 
The main point I`d like to agree with is: If a movie does suck or is not in line with mass appeal it`s not going to attract a big enough audience that`s willing to pay for it - and investors / advertisers as well. "Art", like no- and no-budget filmmakers call it, is not going to sell well (at least 99,9% of the times). The only way that worked for me and that I`m going to keep going is to aim for the very best I can do, make it public, let others judge my work, build up my credibility and "value" and go on. Things like "blair witch" and a very few others happen way too rarely to just try it that way - let`s face it, with no- or low-budget (0-300K) you`re always bound to low standards in terms of production value (locations, studio sets, actors, postpro etc.) and is not going to attract the regular audience.
 
Roberto Rodriquez is probably the best example, but there's a reason he succeeded with a no-budget movie: it was a mass-market exercise in every respect except budget. And in fact that became one the marketing campaigns for El Mariachi -- see a Hollywood movie made for $7K! (plus a few hundred thousand in post, which they often failed to mention).
Click to expand...

El Mariachi wasn't shot anywhere Rodriguez Marketing figure and it's proven! Some guy actually reshot it and endet up with a lot more than this number. Also the studios financed the whole postpro/redub of it.

You can't go on such marketing figures. They are mostly there as a marketing gag to get press coverage. The guy who made tarnation acutally claims to have shot it for 218,32$. It's just ridiculous and laughable! The dv-tapes and super8 roles probably costed more than that.

Don't be stupid, we all know how expensive it is to just rent a light...
 
muroshi said:
El Mariachi wasn't shot anywhere Rodriguez Marketing figure and it's proven! Some guy actually reshot it and endet up with a lot more than this number. Also the studios financed the whole postpro/redub of it.

You can't go on such marketing figures. They are mostly there as a marketing gag to get press coverage. The guy made tarnation acutally claims to have shot it for 218,32$. It's just ridiculous and laughable! The dv-tapes and super8 roles probably costed more than that.

Don't be stupid, we all know how expensive it is to just rent a light...
Click to expand...

There's no way to know if R.R.'s claims were truthful, but they were credible. He bought reflectors and photofloods at the hardware store, and got just about everything else for free. The only significant expense was film stock and processing. I can't say he really ended up with video dailies for $7K, but it was at least possible on paper, given the shooting ratio he claimed.

Same is true of Tarnation, which was based entirely on the filmmaker's own archival footage. The only real expense would be the editing system and his own labor. $200 for tapes and supplies is about right.

Of course, in neither case are we talking about a film print or related post.
 
There's no way to know if R.R.'s claims were truthful, but they were credible. He bought reflectors and photofloods at the hardware store, and got just about everything else for free. The only significant expense was film stock and processing. I can't say he really ended up with video dailies for $7K, but it was at least possible on paper, given the shooting ratio he claimed.
Click to expand...

Only found this here: "When examining what appears on the final screen for this dollar-value, you must remember that Rodriguez dumped his negative straight to 3/4 inch video and edited from there. He did not pay for a 16mm print of the picture, nor make use of any film editing facilities or equipment. When El Mariachi was picked up by Columbia, the studio paid for the prints, the negative matching, the blow-ups, sound remix, the subtitles, and the credits." And that this did cost another 300'000$ but I heard of a guy who did something similar and ended up over 100'000$

Same is true of Tarnation, which was based entirely on the filmmaker's own archival footage. The only real expense would be the editing system and his own labor. $200 for tapes and supplies is about right.
Click to expand...

And the camera, and super8 filmstock (not that cheap), and, and.. this is clearly a marketing figure.
 
Rodriguez

Rodriguez

Robert Rodriguez was quite forthright and up front on not spending any money.

"El Mariachi wasn't shot anywhere Rodriguez Marketing figure and it's proven! "

The final version wasn't, but the version he SOLD TO A MAJOR STUDIO was.

So why are you questioning his integrity?

The facts are plainly clear.
 
Something that does worry me as a young filmmaker trying to find his place in this world is that with the democratisation of filmmaking comes a darker side to the enabling nature of new technology and distribution avenues.

What's happening is that more and more films are being produced but the general population isn't finding an increase in leisure time to go and actively seek movies. The competition for the audience's very limited leisure time is brutal. Marketing costs are skyrocketing...

Putting myself in the shoes of Joe-Public I think to myself. I've worked my ass off all week, ive only got so much time on the weekend. Im either going to watch a movie in the cinema or buy a DVD, pop it in at home and make a night of it.

I want to know what im getting. I want it to work out of the box, no waiting.

I'm not exactly going to trawl through th internet, sign up to some website and fancy giving an independent Spanish Sci Fi drama a chance.

Yes, there are comparable and possibly sustainable business models emerging in less resource intensive creative fields such as the indie music scene where the middle man (label) is cut out and the albums/singles sell less but a much higher percentage is kept by the artist.

Sorry, I'm tired right now after a looong day of editing really unengaging material.

I think that Mike Curtis from ProVideoCoalition has talked about this problem much more eloquently than I could in my present state.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/mcurtis/
(2nd Article down)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top