Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

ORIGINAL FILMS

I can tell you that in all my dealings with Telefilm (since 1996) they would never turn down a commercial film because it was un-Canadian or too Hollywood. They want successes as much as anyone to justify their annual federal allocation.

Fact is with French-Language films Telefilm averages 5% recoupment on investment. Their annual budget is $100 Million a year and $28 Million is admin and corporate overhead. So in essence they have about $75 Million per year to fund all feature films produced in Canada.

In western Canada for example there's only $15 Million to spend on features...out of the maximum regional contribution of $1.5 Million per film (at 49% of the financial structure), most never, ever reach that. Instead it's more like $500-750,000. If you look at how the financial structures work, and you want to maximize your Telefilm investment at 49% of budget, then you really cannot have a budget of more than $2 Million. If your provincial tax credit is 25-30% and your federal tax credit (meaning 8/10 creative points such as CDN writer & director) gets another 6% then you're still at 80-85%...the gap comes in with a presale(s) that numerically works at a certain budget level. If you're very lucky to convince one or more broadcasters to pre-buy (because you need the papered commitment to interim finance at the bank) you get CDN TV/pay sales of 10%...and then there's some small gap that comes in which is typically some manner of deferral/re-investment on your fees.

So we kill ourselves for our art, our narratives, the stories that matter to us, cultivating the craft, and we try to figure out why this matters, or why anyone should bother to see our self-indulgent views of the human condition. Is that cultural? It's certainly not studio.

The question becomes: what if there was no Telefilm Canada? Where would we be as filmmakers? There's no financial incentive to take risk as an entrepreneur -thanks to the tax shelters of the 70's and 80's that were abused and subsequently outlawed. Do we use tax credits to service US productions with the hope that we do enough of them to fund our own films, which will then suffer in production value because there isn't sufficient money to produce a film that can compete internationally on the festival circuit -a typical path to garnering any sort of attention.

Getting back on track -it is absolutely essential we talk and exchange ideas including success and failures. Each year in places like Cannes or Park City or Austin or Toronto there are films that captures lightning in a bottle, gaining a life that hundreds if not thousands of filmmakers worldwide hope will happen with their little film.

Red is doing its part in a massive way to support us. They are the tools allowing us to achieve our visions...and those tools are getting better every day.
 
I remember Ridley Scott talking about when he got $900k from Paramount to shoot the Duellist which was a period piece (Napoleonic) and shot in three countries. Now the average budget is $44mil, which basically means the cost of films producing has gone up 200% every year for the past 20 years.

Hey Tim, I believe if $900K doubles every year for 20 years, the number comes out to $943,718,400,000. Not $44 million. Exponential growth.
 
I think a big problem is that to get Canadian grant money your film has to be "extra Canadian" and "un-Hollywood". The advantage that Hollywood has over other countries is that the ONLY agenda there is making films that people want to see. there is no added burden of also making something that defines local culture or is "un-Hollywood" (which usually translates into dull). Its' hard enough just to make a good film, you don't need a double-agenda.

Okay, sensible head on now...

I nearly agree with you here, but I'd say that the advantage Hollywood has is their only agenda is making money - that's different from making films that people want to see. I for one don't want to go to see Transformers 4 or American Pie 27.
 
Now this is maybe going to sound like criticism of some great directors, but it really isn't. I agree that innovative original stories are much needed and Hollywood almost never does anything but recycle, but it's also sad that when an independent does an original film they often get sucked into the Hollywood system and end up doing Hollywood films. Look at Chris Nolan. Memento was amazing and the Batman films were very good but... Or the Warchofsky brothers - the first Matrix was amazing but the 2nd and 3rd were so-so. I could go on but you get the idea. It's rare to see an original stay an original. I'd love to see more. Just my thoughts this morning.
 
Now this is maybe going to sound like criticism of some great directors, but it really isn't. I agree that innovative original stories are much needed and Hollywood almost never does anything but recycle, but it's also sad that when an independent does an original film they often get sucked into the Hollywood system and end up doing Hollywood films. Look at Chris Nolan. Memento was amazing and the Batman films were very good but... Or the Warchofsky brothers - the first Matrix was amazing but the 2nd and 3rd were so-so. I could go on but you get the idea. It's rare to see an original stay an original. I'd love to see more. Just my thoughts this morning.

Well, do consider that Memento was not self-financed, his prior feature was. As well, we would've never gotten his following features afterward because they're all financed by the big nasty H-Wood Monster. All of these examples, they need big money to do the property justice and wouldn't be the same movies at all without the capital.

I can see why others would think it's sad, I wonder if the directors/filmmakers are saddened by being able to have the financial freedom to do bigger and better in several areas?
 
Miranda July's "The Future"

Very early MX film (last February). Totally original story, interesting
Arthouse vibe.

I helped shape this film as DIT by encouraging them
To go Red MX (over D21 or original red M)

My experience on this film also encouraged me to "buy into" red because I had such a great experience I wanted to own a piece of the magic.
 
Guys, this is a great thread. And it's good most of us seem to be beyond the whole Big Hollywood = Bad, Indie = Good cliche. Because Christopher Nolan is a good example of someone who has "crossed over" yet done a great job at keeping his films fairly strong and well done. Yes, I felt like Inception had some elements that were very obviously designed to make it more commercially appealing (such as the lengthy Matrix-like fighting scene, or the crazy snow action finale) ... yet still quite a film. So "Big Hollywood" isn't always bad and sometimes large budgets help and allow for more possibilities ....

I think partly what's happening now is that we're in a bit of limbo -- and what I mean that I believe the internet and social media is progressively beginning to help balance things out. Obviously, there are still huge inflated budget films with lots of hype ... but if they suck, they are punished so badly in reviews and online word of mouth, they feel the pain (in terms of reduced box office sales) more than ever. It's much harder to simply throw a lot of money at a film, get some stars on board, market the hell out of it, and guarantee it's box office success. And I think this effect will be heightened even more going forward -- as sharing between movie viewers will be even more rapid and complete, and more people will hold back attending until they get social proof from their friends and peers that a film is good (or not) ...

All this is good news as well for independent filmmakers. Because I think -- whether a film is sold via an online content provider and makes money that way -- or it's offered free and other monetization methods are used (the whole science of making money from visitors and traffic) ... if it's REALLY good, it's going to get shared, talked about, youtube hits, "liked" via Facebook and other channels, etc. It's a HUGE opportunity to get exposure, acclaim and even funding/compensation in ways that were never possible in the past. I'm willing to bet the Studios hate that.

Yet what all of this also means for filmmakers (who want to succeed outside the mainstream Hollywood machine) is that they need to either learn online marketing and social media -- or partner with those who do. This will help eliminate some of the powerlessness that has plagued the independent filmmaker ... powerlessness that has been going on as long as all the key funding decisions and distribution has been governed by studio heads and marketing departments.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Anthony you've pretty much nailed it. In so may ways we're in a state of transition; studio executives who put their faith in marketing rather than scriptwriting aren't a help, neither are changing distribution models which confuse the market, as does 3D, as does piracy, as does a generation of kids brought up to believe everything in life is free. Where we'll end up is anyone's guess, but hopefully it will settle down.

One thing for sure, ever since William Shakespeare charged Londoners a couple of shillings to enter the Globe Theatre to watch one of his hilarious comedies the exchange of money and the ability to turn a profit has been vital in encouraging new and interesting creative work. Today, that simple business model is under threat and it's paramount that a new paradigm is found to replace it; either that or prepare yourselves for Michael Bay to take over the world.
 
Yes, Anthony you've pretty much nailed it. In so may ways we're in a state of transition; studio executives who put their faith in marketing rather than scriptwriting aren't a help, neither are changing distribution models which confuse the market, as does 3D, as does piracy, as does a generation of kids brought up to believe everything in life is free. Where we'll end up is anyone's guess, but hopefully it will settle down.

I like the thoughts being generated in the thread. My own response? It's not changing. If you really break it down to what's changed, there's only one component: the internet. Okay, cool, so then the machine just needs to shift the model to the internet.

Netflix, Hulu, etc... paid subscriptions from the get go. It's no different than cable television, only now you're giving up a lot more than just certain shows. That is until Netflix and Hulu become the new HBO and SHOWTIME, then start to deliver their own brands.

On Marketing and Script: most independents are infinitely worse in every aspect than any "bad" hollywood generated motion picture. I mean, when's the last time you paid to watch some guy from Arkansas one location flatly lit feature film? Heck, when did you watch it for free and sit through it all the way?

It's already happening. Micro/Nano-Independents need to look at it and realize that the model isn't changing shape, it's just changing locations.

One thing for sure, ever since William Shakespeare charged Londoners a couple of shillings to enter the Globe Theatre to watch one of his hilarious comedies the exchange of money and the ability to turn a profit has been vital in encouraging new and interesting creative work. Today, that simple business model is under threat and it's paramount that a new paradigm is found to replace it; either that or prepare yourselves for Michael Bay to take over the world.

Eh, Michael Bay won't live forever. And, honestly, it's not like the studio system isn't ingesting great talent on a regular basis. If you keep up with the trades, you'll see that. The fresh voices and perspectives are arriving, not in droves, but that's not any sort of surprise: can you name more than ten working directors in this industry without resulting to google?

I'm not being argumentative, either. I hope it's not coming off that way. Just food for thought.
 
I like the thoughts being generated in the thread. My own response? It's not changing. If you really break it down to what's changed, there's only one component: the internet. Okay, cool, so then the machine just needs to shift the model to the internet.

Netflix, Hulu, etc... paid subscriptions from the get go. It's no different than cable television, only now you're giving up a lot more than just certain shows. That is until Netflix and Hulu become the new HBO and SHOWTIME, then start to deliver their own brands.

On Marketing and Script: most independents are infinitely worse in every aspect than any "bad" hollywood generated motion picture. I mean, when's the last time you paid to watch some guy from Arkansas one location flatly lit feature film? Heck, when did you watch it for free and sit through it all the way?

It's already happening. Micro/Nano-Independents need to look at it and realize that the model isn't changing shape, it's just changing locations.



Eh, Michael Bay won't live forever. And, honestly, it's not like the studio system isn't ingesting great talent on a regular basis. If you keep up with the trades, you'll see that. The fresh voices and perspectives are arriving, not in droves, but that's not any sort of surprise: can you name more than ten working directors in this industry without resulting to google?

I'm not being argumentative, either. I hope it's not coming off that way. Just food for thought.


Ten Working Directors Without Google
Michael Bay
Steven Spielberg
J.J. Abrams
Darren Aronofsky
Edgar Wright
Jon Favreau
Robert Rodriquez
Quentin Tarantino
Peter Jackson
Neil Blomkamp

(there's 10)
 
Ten Working Directors Without Google
Michael Bay
Steven Spielberg
J.J. Abrams
Darren Aronofsky
Edgar Wright
Jon Favreau
Robert Rodriquez
Quentin Tarantino
Peter Jackson
Neil Blomkamp

(there's 10)

More than

But, the statement wasn't that there aren't at least ten working directors, it was made to say that for the thousands of filmmakers alive, only a small group are actually consistently working.
 
Yes, Anthony you've pretty much nailed it. In so may ways we're in a state of transition; studio executives who put their faith in marketing rather than scriptwriting aren't a help, neither are changing distribution models which confuse the market, as does 3D, as does piracy, as does a generation of kids brought up to believe everything in life is free. Where we'll end up is anyone's guess, but hopefully it will settle down.

One thing for sure, ever since William Shakespeare charged Londoners a couple of shillings to enter the Globe Theatre to watch one of his hilarious comedies the exchange of money and the ability to turn a profit has been vital in encouraging new and interesting creative work. Today, that simple business model is under threat and it's paramount that a new paradigm is found to replace it; either that or prepare yourselves for Michael Bay to take over the world.

LOL. Thanks Liam, I agree with you .... and I don't think the ability to turn a profit hurts. Again, you put it perhaps better than I did ... we are in a state of transition. Obviously, people won't stop going to the theater, and there will continue to be paid models online like Netflix, iTunes, etc ... but also "free" models where filmmakers can still make money without charging for their films. It's already happening, just not at the level I think it will exist in the future.
 
On Marketing and Script: most independents are infinitely worse in every aspect than any "bad" hollywood generated motion picture. I mean, when's the last time you paid to watch some guy from Arkansas one location flatly lit feature film? Heck, when did you watch it for free and sit
through it all the way?

I fly long haul a lot, so watch a lot of movies. There are loads of great independent movies out there, some made with known talent, some made with unknown talent. For breakthrough success, they simply need a chance to be showcased to a wider audience. Yes, there are hundreds of poor indies too, so what?. Most are made by wannabe's, nobodies and amateurs. I say, good luck to them; just getting a film finished without the trappings afforded by a Hollywood budget is no small achievement, so they all have my respect.


It's already happening. Micro/Nano-Independents need to look at it and realize that the model isn't changing shape, it's just changing locations.

If it's changing locations - then the model is changing too. That change will escalate when cheaper, hi-resolution large screen technology enters the home. And it will.


can you name more than ten working directors in this industry without resulting to google?

Despite the substance abuse over the years, yes I can. Easily. Ken Loach and Mike Leigh were the first two names to make it into my list - both great British Indie directors - followed by Pedro Almovodar and the bloke who made Y Tu Mama Tambien (now that was a good Indie)...

I'm not being argumentative, either. I hope it's not coming off that way. Just food for thought.
No don't worry, you're not coming off as an ass. That's my job:)
 
Y Tu Mama Tambien (now that was a good Indie)...

So true. Hadn't thought about that film in a while, but despite seeing it many years ago, many of it's images are still vivid in my mind ...
 
Back
Top