Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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?

hmmm

hmmm

The internet is the greatest invention of our lifetimes, and so don't get discouraged by people who only look at a little slice of it, or who seek to discourage.

It is quite a bit more, and larger, than anyone can conceive in their minds.

What you want is viral communication, people passing on information about your work for free, of their own volition, and in a way that inspires others to do so as well. A simple "tell two friends" who "tell two friends" multiplies into millions after several iterations.

So what are they supposed to "tell" about you and your film?
 
jpp said:
You may have endless access, but so does everyone else, just like in the world.
Click to expand...

No, I think the Internet is way different. I the real movie world theatrical releases must appeal to a large number of people who live pretty close to the theater. So wide theatrical releases literally only work for the biggest of ideas.

But the Internet should allow a filmmaker to make a movie surrounding any small community (say a few hundred thousand people) and get the movie out to them. 20,000 people paying $20 for a Blue-Ray probably supports a $100k movie. With RED you can actually deliver them something of quality they'd be proud to own.

For the little filmmaker the Internet/Digital Distribution is the best opportunity in the history of the mankind. The Stars of tomorrow will all probably launch themselves via the Net and Hollywood will sign them because they have ALREADY proven themselves.

Pirating and the rest of it may mean the monetary model completely changes - but as for eyeballs on your product this is an awesome time to be alive.
 
burnie said:
But making a film is much, much more difficult than building a website, serving a video and selling a few ads.
Click to expand...

Awesome - show us how it's done. Can't wait to see your cashed checks.

Do you know why the guy who sells it gets the most money? 'Cause that's the hardest part. On every distributor's desk are 50 new fully complete features every week.

I'd agree that filmmakers who are also great business people/marketers have a chance to "beat the house" like never before. They just need to create sellable stuff... and I don't think 9/10 writers or filmmakers have any clue what sells. Tomorrow all movies might need to be free... so how and what do you sell?
 
Joel, it's a little odd that you went from touting the model in one post to saying it's high unlikely in your next post.

I think when talking about the possibilities of online distribution, you have to make the assumption that your product will be good. Of course garbage won't sell. It won't sell in any environment -- even a free one.

And, sincerely, selling a movie is not the hardest part. It's just the part we have historically had the least control over. The internet has changed that, and yet people keep trying to re-introduce that model for no reason. That's the point I was trying to make.
 
joelnet said:
Point was he's been making commercial stuff from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is not right I think. Did you see "Bad Taste"? I really don`t believe that he thought about what he was making and least if it is going to sell - I read an article where he actually stated that it struck him that the movie sold that well - even made any profit. And he got heavy support by New Zealand`s film comission - not really what you can call a regular "commercial" way. At least not for my liking.
 
burnie said:
Joel, it's a little odd that you went from touting the model in one post to saying it's high unlikely in your next post.

And, sincerely, selling a movie is not the hardest part.
Click to expand...

I don't think I changed my position on anything.

1) Getting an end user to hand you $20 for a movie is not easy. I'll believe selling is easy for you when you actually go do it and show us all a picture of the Ferrari you bought.

2) Even good filmmakers can make good films that are totally unsellable. Netflix is loaded with nice little dramas no one watched. I think most filmmakers will remain on this path of bliss and despair.

3) A few filmmakers are also really good business people - better than most small distributors - and THOSE filmmakers will create very marketable movies (probably within niches), promote them well and make more many than traditional distribution would ever have given them. And retain their rights. Robert Greenwald comes to mind, but there are others.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
 
muroshi said:
Everyone can make a movie. The hardest part is selling it.
Click to expand...

Yes but very very very few can make a movie that others find entertaining or worth watching. Because of cheap digital video cameras, these days being a filmmaker is like being a real estate agent. Maybe one out of a hundred make a living at it. It requires lots of talent, business sense and hard work.

I don't think selling a great movie is that hard, it's just that it requires lots of capital to market it - so to investors, only the best are worth the risk.
 
1) Getting an end user to hand you $20 for a movie is not easy. I'll believe selling is easy for you when you actually go do it and show us all a picture of the Ferrari you bought.
Click to expand...

For the record, I never said it was easy. I said making a movie is harder. I think that all the effort that goes into funding and then producing a movie far outweighs the amount of effort it takes to sell the movie to a retail outlet or to sell it online directly to your audience.

2) Even good filmmakers can make good films that are totally unsellable. Netflix is loaded with nice little dramas no one watched. I think most filmmakers will remain on this path of bliss and despair.
Click to expand...

I think this might be the only place where we are disagreeing. I would see a film on Netflix as being "sold" -- in this case to Netflix. Maybe you mean theatrical distribution, I was cutting that out of the equation altogether.
 
burnie said:
For record, I never said it was easy. I said making a movie is harder. I think that all the effort that goes into funding and then producing a movie far outweighs the amount of effort it takes to sell the movie to a retail outlet.
Click to expand...


I guess I'd respectfully disagree for many reasons. You seem to be thinking you can just get a movie on the shelf of Wal-Mart. Somehow. Go to Wal-Mart and see how many indie movies are there. The $5 bargain bin has Top Gun and Titanic in it probably.

The marketing plan for a movie "should" begin at the concept stage and continues through screenwriting.

burnie said:
I think this might be the only place where we are disagreeing. I would see a film on Netflix as being "sold" -- in this case to Netflix. Maybe you mean theatrical distribution, I was cutting that out of the equation altogether.
Click to expand...

I mean making money back to the filmmakers.

Many, many, many movies on Netflix didn't put squat in the pocket of the filmmaker. Most distribution deals these days are simply horrible. I personally consider a movie with no traditional distribution deal that is bringing back more than the cost of the movie to the filmmakers bank account to be far more successful. Having your movie in Netflix might even be harmful to your bottom line.

I guess I just personally know a number of filmmakers who've made nice little films (even shot on 35mm with name talent and budgets well into 6 figures) that couldn't get anything more than a few grand up front.

Helen Hunt can't get her indie movie distributed profitably right now. $3 million dollar budget and she's an Oscar winner. Ditto for Morgan Freeman and Steven Soderbergh.

Yeah, selling is easy.
 
Yeah, selling is easy.
Click to expand...

You keep coming back to something I never said. I said that making movies is more difficult then selling movies.

And you keep interjecting distributors in a model without distributors. That was my main point at the beginning: people can't get out of the mind set that you have to have a distributor to sell something, even on the internet. The net is one huge distribution system, yet online producers still hand off their hard work to companies that have a server and a few ad relationships.

I think of it like this -- Helen Hunt's producers were capable of selling a $3 million idea (to get their budget), but not a $3 million finished product? Which sounds more difficult to you?

I would guess that these people just don't want to "step down" to anything that seems like self-distribution -- save Soderbergh, who I think is exceptionally innovative and willing to take risks on the business side of movie making.
 
burnie said:
You keep coming back to something I never said. I said that making movies is more difficult then selling movies.
Click to expand...

And I keep disagreeing because I can show you 10000 movies that got MADE but not made money back to the maker. 3500 movies got submitted to Sundance last year. Many more than that are getting submitted this year.

It's way easier to write, shoot and edit a movie then it is to sell the resulting product. With or without distributors.
 
joelnet said:
And I keep disagreeing because I can show you 10000 movies that got MADE but not sold. 3500 movies got submitted to Sundance last year. Many more than that are getting submitted this year.

It's way easier to grab write, shoot and edit a movie then it is to sell the resulting product.
Click to expand...

again i agree with you joel,
i only see two ways of selling

get something nobody has---maybe one in a million has this....or
get a "known" actor to play in your movie, then you can sell everything and make a profit (best example of content vs. star plays in my film selling point is UWE BOLL---ok this is really extreme)
 
3500 movies got submitted to Sundance last year. Many more than that are getting submitted this year.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we are definitely talking about two different models. I don't disagree with anything you are saying, we're just coming to the same point along totally opposite vectors. In my model, you would not waste time at Sundance, because the ultimate goal of Sundance is to sell to a distributor. In the model I am talking about, you would rather be a top link on Digg than an official selection at Sundance.
 
there are 4000 reds out there next year...lets say 100 of the owners buy 2000 redrays together...and hook them up to a projector in a theatre located near them and start a distribution company...

2000 screens is not bad worlwide

and to decide if a movie gets released you could start a yes or no vote between these 100 sharehoulders.
51 of them have to like the movie and say yes...

the movie could be watched via internet in a much lower quality.

bad would be if no film gets the 51 votes :)
 
No one has mentioned, 'magic'! (Have they?)... Name actors are better than non-actors, but far more expensive. Roger Deakins is far more talented and unavailable than... your friend from film school (probably). But none of this matters, if you strike a chord, hit the pulse, smash conventions, set new standards, or simply make people piss themselves laughing.

I think as soon as you try too hard, are aware of what you're trying to do in every thought, the magic starts to seep through your fingers.

'Simply' believe in what you're doing, know you have an awesome script, believe in your actors because they have been chosen from the best and are the best, shoot with the best equipment ;>) and make it a polished, professional-looking film. It's done. Yea right.

How many people have felt that and almost died making their masterpiece? You've slaved over your baby for months at least, and Joe-Blow the viewer says, "That was good", or, "That sucked", or, "The was okay", and often not much else, unless the MAGIC kicked in! If you've got a film/movie people are talking about, from Clerks to The Dark Knight, people are going to see it.

Maybe.

So how do you make money? How can you make millions? I'll show you the track to follow within two years. Or just go to DovSSims weekender! Ha ha!

BTW, this Thread has struck a chord, hasn't it?! It's like it found it's target market! And that helps, too!

Kaya, I so can't wait - power to the people!
 
ricopedra said:
No one has mentioned, 'magic'! (Have they?)... . ... if you .... simply make people piss themselves laughing.
Click to expand...

this is one thing...........you could shoot that movie on the shittiest camera in the world....

if that would make me piss myself, the movie deserves every cent...

for this you need no famous actor...

thank you for reminding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top