How to make money from internet distribution of movies?

[Joel Kaye]

AFAIK, Shawshank flopped at the box-office.

Does that make it a bad movie?

The pay factor cannot be the only thing.

You're right, it's not the only thing.

Hollywood actually makes movies that are not very commercial all the time.

They do make Shawshank Redemption and Mystic River and Dead Man walking... and all kinds of things that aren't likely to be very profitable. The reason they get made is usually because movie stars will do them for much less than they charge to be in a blockbuster. Sometimes a financier backs a project for the sake of getting the script onto screen and nothing else. I'd argue, MANY movies get done that way and predictably flop. What's John Cusak's new movie that Hollywood won't touch? War Made Easy.

Having said that, I don't think many filmmakers have the luxury of making movies that are tough sells.

It remains - everyone defines "good" and "art" so differently that faulting Hollywood for not spending $200 million dollars on something only a minor part of the population would LIKELY value is unfair. The road is littered with the bodies of filmmakers who seemed to think their sh!t didn't stink. Maybe complaining about the marketplace is something artists do to protect their egos.

It's OUR job to go make little movies for little niches and do it was well as we can. If we can't make our money back then make it a smaller movie next time.

 

[jpp]

It's OUR job to go make little movies for little niches and do it was well as we can. If we can't make our money back then make it a smaller movie next time.

I think you're kinda missing the point. The annual losses on the Sundance Dramatic Competition must be in the tens of millions, not to mention the fortune lost on the films which don't even get in. The problem isn't lack of money, it's money spent disastrously on all the wrong projects, stuff that doesn't have the excuse of either art or commerce.

One reason Australia provides the American movie industry so many stars and directors is that virtually everything over there is subsidized by the government, so talent can actually develop. We know the U.S. government is never going to do the same, but the question is, what would it take to change the commercial mindset in this country? How much money do these people have to lose in indie films, before they examine their market assumptions?

Money would still be lost, and the financing situation in this country would probably never sustain a viable art-house cinema tradition, but at least bankruptcy could be achieved with some dignity and redeeming value.

 

[Priyesh P.]

I think you're kinda missing the point. The annual losses on the Sundance Dramatic Competition must be in the tens of millions, not to mention the fortune lost on the films which don't even get in. The problem isn't lack of money, it's money spent disastrously on all the wrong projects, stuff that doesn't have the excuse of either art or commerce.

A perfect observation! I`ve had a good insight into Germany`s and Europe`s student-films at "sehsucht", a little movie-festival that took place at the historic Babelsberg studios where i.e. Metropolis was made. There was only one movie that you could actually watch - an Israeli one, a little love story, nothing special, but nearly academy-worth in contrast to the other "poop-turned-movies"- stuff. But the same disaster exists in the indie- and regular movies market here in Germany, too.
Just yesterday I was at a little get together at an effects studio - and coincidentally a tv-movie was shot right at the floor above - I didn`t see the set (it didn`t interest me anyways) - but the multitude of cars, trucks, 1 big and 1 "giant" supersilenced generator and numerous other things made me curious, but in the end, it was another shitty flick from "regina ziegler film", a production company that specialized to serve the German seniors with mind numbing & vomit inducing movies - made for budgets around 1-2 million euros...

 

[Joel Kaye]

One reason Australia provides the American movie industry so many stars and directors is that virtually everything over there is subsidized by the government, so talent can actually develop.

And this list of great Australian films is what? Road Warrior?

No matter who tosses out the money THEY end up being the arbiter of what it should generally get spent on. So if the gov't does it - then WHO do they give the money to? Who writes it and who directs it and who acts in it? Who decides all that stuff? The concept is still sold to someone.

If we were talking about the evening news I'd agree publicly funding several truly independent news sources that don't take any advertising would likely result in far superior news. But my definition of a good movie is something that gives people the feelings they want - and Hollywood trounces the rest of the world at doing that.

Again - give me some specifics. What movies are good to YOU and what movies are bad?

 

[jpp]

And this list of great Australian films is what? Road Warrior?

Well, I never quite said great films, but rather that the system is producing a lot of skilled and talented people. However, there are a number of good films which could probably never get made in the U.S., for lack of obvious commercial characteristics, and which you may not know, from "Proof" (early low budget Russell Crowe film, not the adaptation of a play with the same name) to international art-house numbers like "The Piano" (New Zealand, see below) or "The Proposition", to a respectable mainstream effort like "Rabbit Proof Fence".

We need to include New Zealand in the group, because the same state subsidy system applies there. So who comes to mind? Peter Jackson, for one, who isn't exactly an art-house obscurity. Also Jane Campion, who's done arty as well as Hollywood stuff. The most recent example of an Australian director working in Hollywood would be Andrew Dominik, who directed "The Assassination of Jesse James...." (though that's not exactly a typical commercial film; these Aussie directors seem to have opportunities in the American film industry that American indie filmmakers couldn't dream of) and there are many others. Stars would include (thanks to wikipedia) Nicole Kidman, Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Naomi Watts, Geoffrey Rush, Hugh Jackman, Heath Ledger, Hugo Weaving, Paul Hogan, Guy Pearce, Toni Collette, Emilie de Ravin, Judy Davis, David Wenham, Rachel Griffiths, Rose Byrne, Abbie Cornish, Sam Neill (Northern Ireland/New Zealand) and Eric Bana.

Not a bad record, for a country with a population of 20 million. They must be doing something right. Whereas American indie film is evidently doing something wrong, if we're talking about "Clerks" or seven figure movies which were financed because they were directed by a child of John Cassavetes or feature a TV star.

No matter who tosses out the money THEY end up being the arbiter of what it should generally get spent on. So if the gov't does it - then WHO do they give the money to? Who writes it and who directs it and who acts in it? Who decides all that stuff? The concept is still sold to someone.

No case is being made here for public funding. All I'm doing is comparing the commercial and practical results of public funding in Australia, with the commercial and practical results of private and corporate funding of indie films in the U.S., and asking what it would take for private and corporate film funders in the U.S. to wake up to the fact that they don't know what they're doing, that they're not making money, that they're not making good films, and that they're not even discovering and promoting talent for Hollywood on a useful basis.

Again - give me some specifics. What movies are good to YOU and what movies are bad?

Sorry, no. But there's a wide consensus that American indies are, as a whole, pretty bad, and certainly that's the judgment of the marketplace, which is the important thing for you. Why do you want to perpetuate a system of financing that's been a commercial failure for years? Sure, they have a right to lose money this way if that's what they want, but jeez ... what a waste.

 

[Roberto B]

Hating marketing is great until you have to sell something of your own.

thread's post.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

http://technology.newscientist.com/....html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news10_head_dn14395


Futile and undemocratic.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Sorry, no. But there's a wide consensus that American indies are, as a whole, pretty bad

There's a wide consensus that indie movies from every country are bad isn't there? Is there a wellspring of great little indie movies in some country I need to see?

As far as results... you just made the case for Hollywood.

Peter Jackson started out doing The Goonies etc. and he used Hollywood money to make LOTR. That's a Hollywood movie. What Hollywood does is find the best talent from around the world and put them in commercial projects.

So it sounds like you're really saying average American punk kids who make movies suck. OK... but, I'd probably blame American culture and educational system (or lack thereof) for any deficit we might have in the Arts, but not Hollywood.

I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore, but I do know if you want to make money you're going to have to make movies that enthrall people somehow. Most "art" doesn't.

 

[James T Mather]

Peter Jackson started out doing The Goonies etc

First rule of debating: Know your facts.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore, but I do know if you want to make money you're going to have to make movies that enthrall people somehow. Most "art" doesn't.

joel, imo you are right...people and time will show if a movie will make money or not...

1st: if i go to the theatre honestly i want to see something TV cant give me. period.
2nd: if a movie fails in the 1st instance at the box office, but people see it afterwards as a masterpiece it will still make money (apocalypse now)

the i am an artist and waste other peoples money films are horrible imo...

there is commercial crap for sure, but because we see it as crap, doesnt mean 10 million viewers are idiots or brainless stupids.

Its funny how some movies which some us would call mediocre still gross 100 mio.,
well who is right?

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

talking about artistic movies...well thats a niche, period...
there are dedicated videostores, theatres etc.

if someone is interested in that type of movies, he will look for them...
In my case i love asian artistic films and i am looking for them, i dont care to watch them in a theatre, at home, or if the DVD costs 50 Dollars..., but i also love to see a blockbuster 8 Dollars, depends how i feel that day.

 

[jpp]

Peter Jackson started out doing The Goonies etc. and he used Hollywood money to make LOTR. That's a Hollywood movie. What Hollywood does is find the best talent from around the world and put them in commercial projects.

Don't know much about Peter Jackson, having only seen "Heavenly Creatures", but I believe he emerged by making small, state-subsidized films, the same way everyone else does in that part of the world. In other words, he emerged thanks to opportunities he would never have had in the U.S. Far as I can tell, Goonies wasn't one of those films, you crossed your wires somewhere. And LOTR also enjoyed state subsidies, despite being a big budget Hollywood production. At least, that's what friends from the region tell me.

Is there a wellspring of great little indie movies in some country I need to see?

Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, to name 3. However, be warned: I don't think we admire the same kind of material, so I can't answer for your happiness.

but I do know if you want to make money you're going to have to make movies that enthrall people somehow. Most "art" doesn't.

Nobody's disputing that art or entertainment has to make money, if it expects to survive. But it's also true, for example, that not one professional baseball, basketball or football game takes places in this country without state subsidies. The stadiums are subsidized, the surrounding infrastructure is subsidized, the police provide free crowd control on overtime, the owners get 90 year tax holidays and sweetheart land confiscation deals. Just ask George W. Bush, who made millions this way. Beats working, that's for sure.

Meanwhile, Beethoven, Sophocles, Vermeer and Tarkovsky are supposed to pay their own way?

I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore,

Amen to that. I think we've just about run this dispute into the ground.

 

[burnie]

Now, no-one has mentioned, (but a few), any of the internet sites that already do some sort of payback to their content providers, based upon "hits".
And you'll be surprised that you don't need a million hits to start making some coin:

www.metacafe.com
www.hungryflix.com
www.si-mi.com
www.dovetail.tv
www.cruxy.com
www.clipshack.com
www.brightcove.com
www.blip.tv
www.grapeflix.com

The aggravating thing about the current online market is that everyone seems to be turning to distributors like this. The historical impact of the Internet is that you don't need a distributor anymore. You can go right to the audience. And yet, filmmakers consistently take the short route and throw all their work up on someone else's site. Why are we so willing to try to lay the old system on top of the new?

 

[number6]

Why only the Internet, Karapetkov?

Why only the Internet, Karapetkov?

While constantly being reminded by the govt. that analog tv will switch to digital in Feb 2009 in the U.S., I began thinking. A station can send out numerous digital channels on the same bandwidth that analog now uses (over the air TV) so perhaps one of those channels could become a sort of national distribution avenue for Indy movie content for participating stations. It could possibly even replace YooseTube as the higher quality distribution for all kinds of acceptable content.

Does anyone have inside knowledge of how digital tv works and how many channels a station can utilize?



...

 

[Joel Kaye]

Don't know much about Peter Jackson, having only seen "Heavenly Creatures", but I believe he emerged by making small, state-subsidized films, the same way everyone else does in that part of the world.

You're right - I was actually thinking of Meet the Feebles which was another weird little movie with muppety things.

Point was he's been making commercial stuff from the beginning.

Anyway, I hope some art films come along that are terrific and get seen. But I don't think there's really anything stopping it from happening... other than trying to raise millions to make one.

I'd agree with you that I'd rather see the Arts subsidized than sports stadiums. That's just good, old fashioned American corruption. Drives me crazy. And I think American education needs a revamp. And American consumerism leads to no good. We probably agree about a lot of things.

I'm not even sure we disagree on this. Whatever "this" is.

 

[Joel Kaye]

The aggravating thing about the current online market is that everyone seems to be turning to distributors like this. The historical impact of the Internet is that you don't need a distributor anymore. You can go right to the audience. And yet, filmmakers consistently take the short route and throw all their work up on someone else's site. Why are we so willing to try to lay the old system on top of the new?

I think the value these sites add is they create relationships with advertisers. They solve some bandwidth problems too. Ultimately you probably draw more traffic from places like these than you would if you just tossed your movie up on your own website... which no one knows exists. That's part of why people do it.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

The aggravating thing about the current online market is that everyone seems to be turning to distributors like this. The historical impact of the Internet is that you don't need a distributor anymore. You can go right to the audience. And yet, filmmakers consistently take the short route and throw all their work up on someone else's site. Why are we so willing to try to lay the old system on top of the new?

Yeah, maybe just throw trailers on these...

 

[jpp]

If the entire human race is on the internet, with all the competing interests of the physical world on the internet, including movie theaters, museums, film festivals, pirated DVDs, netflix, web-distributed movies, etc., we're back exactly where we started. You may have endless access, but so does everyone else, just like in the world. And a lot of them are making movies.

Maybe Lowrus had the right idea, in a perverse sort of way. If movies are going survive on an alternative distribution model, that could very well mean accepting a completely different idea of what it means to be a filmmaker, and the understanding of what a movie is. Which might include not being rich, not being famous, not reaching huge audiences, but showing the movie to 7 people in a garage or your living room, real or virtual. Because that could be the web audience for it, just like in the mirror world, the real one.

 

[burnie]

I think the value these sites add is they create relationships with advertisers. They solve some bandwidth problems too. Ultimately you probably draw more traffic from places like these than you would if you just tossed your movie up on your own website... which no one knows exists. That's part of why people do it.

But making a film is much, much more difficult than building a website, serving a video and selling a few ads. You could also sell DVD copies of your project -- use the "ad space" for yourself. It's like running a marathon but stopping at the 25th mile, letting someone else finish for you and asking them to tell you if you won.

And the traffic issue is a symptom of the problem. If people would stop turning their work over to corporate sites like YouTube and Metacafe, there would not be the feeling that everyone else has to do so. These sites are even start to call themselves "networks" now. It's very depressing to watch.

 

[mikeburton]

I agree with quite a few points made here so far concerning the Internet sites following the same distribution path as standard methods. However, isn't part of the point that you get your movie in front of an audience at the end of the whole process? That's the value these distribution companies (virtual or physical) hold and you will pay for that marketing and overhead first before you get paid, if you get paid. Let's face it, if you could draw millions of veiwers to your own site you wouldn't need these distributors. If your okay with only a handful of people watching your work you don't need a distributor. Most of us do want our films to be seen and do need a larger, organized outlet to help. Just don't assume your going to profit. Use it for what they are good at, attracting more eyeballs to your work.
In fact, If you want to make a small amount of money online you shouldn't be making a narrative anyhow. Make a reality tv show with girls in bathing suites and lots of drama, action and stunts. That show might come close to making about half their budget back when spread across all the online distribution outlets they can find over a 1 year - 2 year time span.
Enjoy making your films, just don't expect the Internet to make you money when the online distributors are still trying to figure that out for themselves.