How to make money from internet distribution of movies?

[Jaime Vallés]

Don't encourage me, but I was thinking of a film festival panel - featuring the indie director getting his 14 minutes and 59 seconds of fame, the indie producer who had an involuntary hit in 1989 but has bombed ever since he's had the luxury of picking his own projects, the Hollywood agent who's never seen an indie film, and the programming director (what else). There's one of these at every festival.

So of course in the Q&A some kid asks the agent how to get an agent. The answer? Make a great film. Get it into Sundance. Sell it to a distributor for 7 figures. Have 4-5 great scripts ready to go. After that, it shouldn't be difficult.

I still remember the puzzled and hurt look on the guy's face, when everyone over 30 started laughing.

What's really funny is that the answer they gave to the kid's question is absolutely correct! If you're an indie filmmaker, that's exactly what you should be aiming for.

Because, what's the alternative? Make a mediocre movie? How is that going to help get anyone in the door?

Again, if it were easy, everyone would be Spielberg.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Because, what's the alternative? Make a mediocre movie? How is that going to help get anyone in the door?

Again, if it were easy, everyone would be Spielberg.

I heard someone say you used to be punished for medocrity. Now you're punished for anything less than excellence.

Last year 3500 films were submitted to Sundance. This year over 6,000 have been so far (according to a friend who has a friend at Sundance so that number is hearsay). I shutter to think what the numbers will be when RED is truly out of beta and Scarlet is out the door. 14,000? 50,000 scripts were submitted to Project Greenlight per year.

 

[Todd Folts]

Ahhh.. money money money money money

I like Rado's idea, and it could work. sometimes you just have to start something then work out the kinks as you go, evolving and getting better, more secure..

im always wondering how i can make a living making films, i used to make a living making tv commercials (small market tv: low pay). and i think that comparing all this to music is right. but what about RADIOHEAD? didnt the release their last album online for free or a small donation. were they worried about it being stolen and given away for free. And i have used the torrents to get some free stuff ("hey this is a cool application...to bad it crashes every other day...maybe i should buy it"..and then..."if they can crack it, they can crack it and put a trojan in there") and i learned my lesson from that.

i look at it like this
make movie
show it
repeat
get better

make bigger movie
show it bigger
repeat
get better

 

[Todd Folts]

how is it that people still think sundance is "indie"

if it has its own cable channel its not indie, its part of the machine. you have a better chance at doing some creative short doc/news segment for currentTV

everytime i think of sundance i think of south park...

 

[jpp]

What's really funny is that the answer they gave to the kid's question is absolutely correct! If you're an indie filmmaker, that's exactly what you should be aiming for.

Because, what's the alternative? Make a mediocre movie? How is that going to help get anyone in the door?

Again, if it were easy, everyone would be Spielberg.

Well, it's true, but it's also ridiculous. Who needs an agent, particularly one as clueless as this guy (he thought "Sideways" was an indie film), if you've done all that yourself?

But anyway, not everybody wants to be Spielberg. If there are no opportunities, except for people who have already achieved high levels of popular success and are targeting the mass-market, there won't be many good films or films for adults.

We could argue about the chances, and whether it's possible or impossible, and whether the cream will rise to the top, and whether the people who fail in the medium are just insufferable whiners, but there's one thing you really can't argue about: the end result. With the occasional exception, American indie films suck, including the very few that get theatrical releases. Most of them don't even have the characteristics of bad art. It's more like the characteristics of bad journalism.

There are structural reasons for why that is.

JOELNET: don't say that! Excellence is not the issue. Middle-brow material, celebrities and connections with the industry are the keys to Sundance acceptance. Occasionally something good does sneak in, but Sundance is bound to the same structural deficiencies as the production model itself.

 

[Joel Kaye]

but what about RADIOHEAD? didnt the release their last album online for free or a small donation. were they worried about it being stolen and given away for free.

The one pretty big problem with comparing a filmmaker to a band is that bands have always made much of their money touring. Especially new bands. The record label takes the CD sales and the band makes good money touring. So if a band gives their music away and increases ticket sales then it's all good. These days they don't need a record deal at all. They keep the rights to their music too.

Filmmakers don't have live shows... so it's either going to be we give low rez versions away free and charge for the Blue Ray, or we make sponsorship/product placement deals or perhaps let people watch the first 2/3 of the movie for free and charge them a couple dollars to see the last act if they like what they've seen. Or we give the movie away and try to sell them a poster or related products. Merchandising is really what most Hollywood movies are selling. I'm not sure any movie makes a profit by the end of the theatrical run. P&A costs are simply too high.

If you 4 wall an "event" showing of your movie in a bunch of towns that would probably be profitable provided they were presold out via Internet or other marketing.

 

[Todd Folts]

interestng post/website

http://foureyedmonsters.com/neutrality/

 

[Joel Kaye]

JOELNET: don't say that! Excellence is not the issue. Middle-brow material, celebrities and connections with the industry are the keys to Sundance acceptance. Occasionally something good does sneak in, but Sundance is bound to the same structural deficiencies as the production model itself.

Well, I would tend to agree that connections are very helpful at Sundance. But they do accept movies that came from "the wild" and show them.

As to excellence... I'm not sure how to define that other than to say I've read a pretty fair number of amateur scripts and almost everything I see Hollywood put out is better. At least to me it's better.

So I guess I'm sort of agreeing that most indie movies probably are mediocre. But they ARE punished. They don't see the light of day. But then there are movies that are simply not commercial because the basic idea is totally mediocre. Great execution of a boring idea doesn't sell tickets. So I can't call "artists of mediocre concepts" good filmmakers 'cause they keep picking crappy basic ideas.

I just saw Bella Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies. I'm calling it bad. Sorry to say... were there some ideas in there? Yeah, but I didn't connect with or care about anyone in that movie. Call it art, but people buy movies for emotions. Hollywood, with all it's faults, seems to deliver that well. So does reality TV for that matter.

By every account I've heard so far the latest Batman is great. And I think if you look at Hollywood movies fairly you'd see there are a lot of good ones. Clint Eastwood? The Coen's? Those guys kick ass every time IMHO.

 

[Todd Folts]

could always set up a "film project" like the 48hr or project 21 (which does it over three weeks).

the 48hr must be making some dough by now

 

[Joel Kaye]

inimical

Thank God for dictionary.com.

This is already depressing enough, no?

Well it's not Requiem for a Dream depressing, but it's getting close.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

RADIOHEAD, Prince, Coldplay.. (I think.., apart of the fact that they stole some indie band's song for their last album :angry2: )

* * *

So, Sundance is not so hot, huh?

 

[Jaime Vallés]

Well, it's true, but it's also ridiculous. Who needs an agent, particularly one as clueless as this guy (he thought "Sideways" was an indie film), if you've done all that yourself?

But anyway, not everybody wants to be Spielberg. If there are no opportunities, except for people who have already achieved high levels of popular success and are targeting the mass-market, there won't be many good films or films for adults.

We could argue about the chances, and whether it's possible or impossible, and whether the cream will rise to the top, and whether the people who fail in the medium are just insufferable whiners, but there's one thing you really can't argue about: the end result. With the occasional exception, American indie films suck, including the very few that get theatrical releases. Most of them don't even have the characteristics of bad art. It's more like the characteristics of bad journalism.

There are structural reasons for why that is.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. You say that the problem with most American indie films is that they suck. I agree! That's why they don't make money. I'm saying that the way for an American indie film to make money is, first and foremost, to be an awesome, original, kickass movie. That's the only way it'll have a chance of making some kind of money, be it via DVD sales, broadcast, theatrical release, or some type of interned distribution. As you say, the cream will rise to the top.

Do you not agree? Or am I not understanding your post properly?

 

[Yannick Hagman]

I actually think that american indie films are often way better than what I see here in Europe.

What is your goal in filmmaking jpp?

 

[jpp]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. You say that the problem with most American indie films is that they suck. I agree! That's why they don't make money. I'm saying that the way for an American indie film to make money is, first and foremost, to be an awesome, original, kickass movie. That's the only way it'll have a chance of making some kind of money, be it via DVD sales, broadcast, theatrical release, or some type of interned distribution. As you say, the cream will rise to the top.

Do you not agree? Or am I not understanding your post properly?

I don't dispute that making a great film is a fine way to succeed in this life, but am approaching the question from another direction, looking at the results rather the theory. We both agree that great non-Hollywood films AREN'T getting made in the U.S., which has been the case for years now. So my question is, why?

It's my not very original view that the almost exclusive reliance of indie films on commercial finance in the U.S. makes it all but impossible to create a quality alternative cinema to Hollywood. Once commercial considerations enter into the creation of material whose financial success depends at least in part on NOT reproducing commercial formulas (why else would anyone want to see a non-Hollywood movie?) you tend to end up with a useless product. These are movies with some commercial characteristics (otherwise they'd never appeal to indie producers or get financed) and some artistic pretensions (courtesy of their creators), but little or no actual artistic or commercial value. In effect, the resulting movie is a product of the financing requirements, rather than a movie (good or bad) designed to appeal, however cynically or virtuously, to an actual market. What I'm trying to describe here is the Sundance Dramatic Competition (with, of course, some exceptions).

And it gets worse, so let me bitch on. There's a socioeconomic factor at play here. Many if not most "indie filmmakers" in the U.S. are children of upper-middle class professionals, who wanna be artists. These are people whose families can afford to sink a lot of money into an undergraduate and MFA film school education, and who have leisure, resources and access to money after film school. Nothing wrong with coming from a comfortable and generous family, but like members of any other socio-economic group, most of these folks can't write, paint, draw, compose, etc. So they go into the one field of art where there are no distinct technical requirements to do the work, and where the DO have a distinct advantage, but in the form of access to money, resources and a social safety net. They become film directors! The result is hundreds of films every year with none of the characteristics of art, good or bad.

Meanwhile, to continue bitching (is this guy never satisfied?), the democratic, low-rent self-producing model has also failed in the U.S. There's some element of meritocracy here, but not a strong one. Decide for yourself, depending on how deserving of success you think Kevin Smith and Ed Burns are. Of the best two <$100K films I've seen in the last 10 years, neither got distribution, and nobody here will have heard of either one. On the other hand, both of those largely unknown directors have gone on to make other films, so nobody's saying here that there's no hope at all. An unusually insightful or original ultra-low project budget may well succeed or at least attract some attention, even in the U.S. But, the truth is, a mediocre one may as well. Very hard to know or predict.

It's important to note here that other countries, with other kinds of financing arrangements, do have vibrant and long-established art-house traditions, and opportunities which simply don't exist here. Which isn't to say that those countries don't also produce a lot of crap. They do. But it's the crap that seems to make the excellence possible. Here, we get the crap, but not much excellence. So you can thank American capitalism not only for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the state of indie cinema.

But WTF. It won't come as news to anyone that life ain't fair.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

The territory of non-suicidal low-budget shorts is always open... Script, actors and passion...

Freedom lives there...

Then - upload to Internet for free distribution and wait for the miracle to happen...

If it doesn`t - try again... and again... and again...

Even if it never happens - it's fun, I like it.

Non-suicidal low-budget shorts.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I'm saying that the way for an American indie film to make money is, first and foremost, to be an awesome, original, kickass movie.

Yeah, but what's that look like?

I think there probably are hundreds of small American movies created over the past decade that are good movies that no one's ever heard of because they just weren't sellable ideas.

Akeelah and the Bee is an interesting example. Great script - won the top prize in the country if I recall. The Director had an impossible time getting made. Finally got made, and was made well. Won great awards. Still didn't really make a ton of money - certainly not commensurate with the publicity and awards it had. It did do $18million box office on a $9million budget, but P&A probably killed it as it had a 2000 theater release.

In fact, most screenplay contest winners don't get made into movies. Those writers usually get an agent and jobs...writing more commercial ideas.

you tend to end up with crap.

You toss a lot of generalities around. What's a good movie vs. crap? I think in the end a good movie is what people will pay to see... and nobody pays to see a drama these days. Or at least not too many people. Is Good Night and Good Luck a bad movie? Dead Man Walking? Lions for Lambs actually did suck... but they tried.

 

[jpp]

You toss a lot of generalities around. What's a good movie vs. crap? I think in the end a good movie is what people will pay to see...

Since movies are big business, and cost so much to make and distribute, that might well be the most sensible approach: good movies are movies people will pay to see. And that certainly is the approach in Hollywood.

But then all we're talking about is merchandising. "Art" gets used too freely and promiscuously, everybody in this business is a self-described "artist", but hell - is there really nothing left but marketing, even in non-Hollywood ventures? Give in to this one - "good" is what people pay for or can be induced to pay for - and it's all over.

 

[Joe G.]

saints vs. whores

saints vs. whores

Well, now, I'm not going to blindly fall for this after-the-fact justification stuff.

You make a movie, then you release it and see if many, many people are going to pay to see it. There are all sorts of complex 'barriers to entry' that influence that equation.

But, how does that after the fact analysis help you at the making the movie stage?

You're going to rely on the "tried and true" formulas? In other words, derivative copycatting?

Or, do you bring something new and intriguing to the art form?

That's where the rubber meets the road.

The masses may accept or reject it with their pocketbooks. Still, the work stands alone and apart from monetary decisions after the fact. It's much too complex to paint in monochromatic terms.

A filmmaker can make a net loser. This "flop" may have something that so excites a small handful of powerful, influential people, that his career is launched just the same.

In the end it was all individual opinions at work.

I guess I'm saying anyone can be a whore. Just drop your drawers.

Talent is something else.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Give in to this one - "good" is what people pay for or can be induced to pay for - and it's all over.

I guess that's where we'd disagree.

I don't know by what justification something no one will pay to watch can be considered good or "Art". People pay to see good "Art" all the time. People buy paintings, sculptures and tickets to museums.

The end of this discussion remains... everyone's definition of art and talent are different. If you're independently wealthy make whatever you want. If you're not, you better think about what the audience wants and will pay for.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

AFAIK, Shawshank flopped at the box-office.

Does that make it a bad movie?

The pay factor cannot be the only thing.