Steven Soderberh’s State Of Cinema Talk

[Elsie N]

First of all, Soderbergh was mostly speaking for Directors who are able to get a foot in the door of a Studio. And if I remember correctly, in the past Studios negotiated to make seemingly unprofitable movies by making a package deal where a star, a star director, whatever... would first make two or three profitable movies for them.

Things do seem to be getting worse because it appears the movie industry is being run by the accountants and not the movie-makers. Blame the times we live in.

And as it stands, the exhibitors don't have much say in the matter, especially since there are fewer good movies to choose from. To me, that's where TV has gained greater market share. TV leaves the tent pole stuff to Hollywood but on a nightly basis offers much better content than the local theater. "Golden Boy" would have made a great movie a few years ago, but now it plays out over time on TV instead.

If we can't exist in the Big Studio world, I think as movie-makers we should plan on utilizing different paths to distribution such as TV/Studio hybrids like HBO or Showtime or Netflix if we are looking for the funding of a script, and if we find outside funding then look to the new wave of distribution venues on the horizon for better returns. Otherwise, if we want to make good drama or good comedy, we may want to put that on TV where the audiences are by and large, more mature.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Paul Herrin, at first I thought, “I’m not going to respond because of our last encountered did not go to well for either one of us”, but then I thought, let bygones, be bygones. Paul when I say the Studios, I mean the large Studios, Like Warner Brothers, Universal, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Twentieth Century Fox, MGM (but not as much lately), and RKO Pictures (which for practical purposes is dead). What they use to call the Big Eight! They are first and last BANKS, BIG BANKS, they owned lots of Real Estate, and they can borrow against it. They charge exorbitant fee, FOREVER, that what I mean by the studios. They were necessary in the time of 35mm Film, because it did take a lot to get a film out the door, but those cost are now gone!

Studios are not neutral, they want to maximize their profits at the expense of EVERYONE, however slick they may be, and they are very slick. I think I been citing many examples at the length and breadth of this thread, just read them over again. You DON’T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME, that’s OK! It’s not a sentiment; it’s a fact, therefore my OPINION!

I’ll leave you with “Steven Soderbergh” observations; http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/steven-soderbergh-state-of-cinema-address/#more-486368

http://collider.com/steven-soderbergh-retirement-behind-the-candelabra/
http://collider.com/steven-soderbergh-digital-cameras-48-fps-interview/
http://collider.com/magic-mike-2-sequel-steven-soderbergh/
http://collider.com/steven-soderbergh-side-effects-contagion-deleted-scenes/

Humberto Rivera

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

Its well worth the read (or audio). Thanks for posting the links.

 

[M Most]

Phey were necessary in the time of 35mm Film, because it did take a lot to get a film out the door, but those cost are now gone!

The cost of making and distributing motion pictures is not a lot different than it has been for many years. Film stock, film cameras, and lab costs hae been replaced by other charges that are, for the most part, a bit lower, but they're still there. And all of those costs represent only a small part of the overall picture. It's true that digital distribution is a lot less costly than film distribution, but at the scale that big studio pictures must operate, it's by no means free. Advertising is still the same, and that's the major cost of distribution.

I'm always a bit amused by those who seem to feel that the cost of the camera (usually a rental on studio productions) and the lower cost of raw stock are somehow the major budget items in a studio level production, and that lowering the cost of those two things should somehow radically change the overall picture, especially when the mechanics (and thus the costs) of physical production and the financial realities of above the line have not really changed at all.

 

[paulherrin]

let bygones, be bygones.

ha, i can't even recall anything of the sort (no point reminding me, either, unless i've a lesson to learn)

i apologize for not being clear about my language. i agree with you about the exploitation via the entrenched "Studios", i was simply referring to any particular studio as a neutral term. for example, if you or i decided to open an art studio we can guide it however we see fit, and on that note any of the big studios do (however unlikely) have the potential to completely revolutionize their model at any given time and they may begin to re-learn that creative risk is necessary, beneficial, and powerful. i'm just worried that we might get into some surface-level, image-altering changes instead of transformations of core ideology and economic infrastructure.

thanks for the links, i'll check em out when i get a few... busy busy, probably shouldn't be posting, oh well

and mike, you make some really good points. the thing to look at is the chain effect of democratic empowerment, the communication and consciousness shifts connected to internet progressivism, and how a radical change in content acquisition & delivery has lead to critical, deconstructive perspectives of distribution that in turn demand reconstruction. to put it simply, we know that distribution/audience interactivity is the weakest link that has the most potential to transform into a personal boon for entrepreneurial and experimental artists and art studios - and that knowing, that collective consciousness is in full gear until something sustainable is figured out.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Elsie, I could not agree with you more! You’re absolutely right about Steven Soderbergh. The Studios have a way getting into your profits so you never see them. The Accounts and Lawyers’ are making sure of that! But there is Hope, they are losing ground in the World, they are not the only game in the World Stage. World Populations Centers are changing and so is their income.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Mike Most, I’ve always respected your post, they’ve been interesting and informative. I mostly agree with you. It’s on the obscure cost, such as adverting, and other unambiguous cost, as well as such things as the interest on loans and such cost that I have a problem. I would say most bellow the line cost are real, there is no argument there. It’s the more esoteric things that I begin to question! Take the infamous Warner Brothers report, how can a movie take in $938.2 Million World Wide at the Box Office, and have a loss of $167 Million Dollars. There is also the whole business of “Net Profits”, “Gross Profits”, or whatever, at the end is based on a definition that’s within the same contract, and buried in there the language is what dictates the final outcome.

To quote from the article; http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/stu...ause-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting/

“I ran the data above by several attorneys and agents, who are so accustomed to seeing studio accounting wave magic pencils over hit movies that they weren’t surprised even a Harry Potter film that grossed nearly $1 billion would fall under the spell. Dealmakers say studio distribution fees are a killer, as are incestuous ad spends on studios’ sister company networks. They also cited the $57 million in interest charges, an enormous pushback on profitablity. Since Warner Bros didn’t invite in a co-financing partner on the Potter films, has the studio borrowed money from parent company coffers? Are they paying that interest to a bank, or to themselves? Bottom line: nearly $60 million in interest for the estimated $400 million required to make and market Harry Potter, charges carried for about two years, is a high tariff.

As one dealmaker tells me: “If this is the fair definition of net profits, why do we continue to pretend and go through this charade? Judging by this, no movie is ever, ever going to go to pay off on net participants. It’s an illusion to make writers, and lower-level actors and filmmakers feel they have a stake in the game.”

And yet Warner Bros isn’t doing anything differently here than is done by every other studio. Clearly, nothing has changed since Art Buchwald successfully sued Paramount over the 1988 hit COMING TO AMERICA when the subject of net participation was scrutinized, and a judge called studio accounting methods “unconscionable”.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Elsie N]

I'm toying with the idea of setting apart certain percentages of a movie I will make as soon as I can create a way to create the necessary funding. But as things stand, funding will require barter with cast and crew.

There will be a set in stone payout of the total take irrespective of profits. In order to do this so professional cast and crew can be intermingled with untrained people, I've created a differentiation of the two classes and different levels of the movies earnings triggering different points of earnings where less important cast and crew no longer participate in the monies.

At some point, everyone ceases to participate except me as the rights holder. But that is a very high set point and means that the movie is probably successful enough to make a sequel. Then the returning actors can hold me up for a huge payday at that point. '-)

But of course this only works if there are minimal or no distribution costs or other variables involved, because those would accrue directly to my slice of the pie. My best way forward is ODEMAX and ODEMAX adapted theaters.

 

[Marcos Montenegro]

Funny....I went out and shot a movie without thinking of distribution or nothing. I shot it in 3 countries using my vacation time visiting family. I'm still editing it, as other things pay my bills, add a wife and 3 small kids and I got my hands full. I'm 38 and probably considered too old to make a change of careers by many here. Believe me, I need all the help I can get, and would probably NEVER had written/directed and acted on a movie if I listened to everyone about how difficult getting a distribution deal would be.

But you know what? I'm doing it because I love it, I believe in the story I'm trying to tell, and I don't really care how many millions never know about it; when I release it the only person I want to impress is myself because I have this crazy idea that if I like it, then perhaps there will be others that would also like it.

It maybe the last movie I make or the first of many, but at the very least it serves as my future business card. I wouldn't trade this process for nothing. This is a quick trailer with some scenes I shot in Guatemala:

http://youtu.be/1tSWbKayd2A

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Funny....I went out and shot a movie without thinking of distribution or nothing. I shot it in 3 countries using my vacation time visiting family. I'm still editing it, as other things pay my bills, add a wife and 3 small kids and I got my hands full. I'm 38 and probably considered too old to make a change of careers by many here. Believe me, I need all the help I can get, and would probably NEVER had written/directed and acted on a movie if I listened to everyone about how difficult getting a distribution deal would be.

But you know what? I'm doing it because I love it, I believe in the story I'm trying to tell, and I don't really care how many millions never know about it; when I release it the only person I want to impress is myself because I have this crazy idea that if I like it, then perhaps there will be others that would also like it.

It maybe the last movie I make or the first of many, but at the very least it serves as my future business card. I wouldn't trade this process for nothing. This is a quick trailer with some scenes I shot in Guatemala:

http://youtu.be/1tSWbKayd2A

Marcos - your passion for making your movie is a great one and seems to be the motivation for many indie filmmakers. You were brave (and, yes, perhaps a bit naive) to just go do it. But, the real issue is whether you will have the money, time, passion and motivation to make a second or third film; to actually become a filmmaker rather than someone who made a film.

I attended a presentation during the San Francisco International Film Festival recently where Ted Hope, Exec Director of the San Francisco Film Society, stated that 80% of filmmakers never make a second film. Wow. That is a pretty big "drop-out rate" for any activity! I believe the issue is simply that making a film is a difficult and daunting process and, while passion helps, in the end passion alone cannot sustain. It takes money to bring in others to collaborate and most films must make some financial return if the filmmaker is to be moved to create another film.

Like it or not, distribution of some sort is necessary for financial return and, for that matter, if your desire is simply to have others hear what you have to say.

So, new, more democratic and less expensive methods of delivery will certain help the small filmmaker get into the game but marketing, the activity that will actually get your film on the radar of potential viewers, will still be an important and challenging part of the equation. Thankfully, technology is helping to democratize that business, too.

More than an art form, film is a business simply becuase it requires so much collaboration and coordination to bring it to a state of realization. These are exciting times.

 

[Brian Pascale]

Sorry it isn't working out. So sad that you can make something of value that can make money, and there is so little chance to get a fair return for your work.

Thanks James...

We do have good actors ready to go, Shooting in 4 countries... Modest budget , gear everything all ready to go.. , huge post production values, genre movie as well. Action, UFO's, the lot... Ticks every commercial box (you'd think) WRONG!....
Sadly, the way these monkey exec's are talking in these meetings is that at best I get my investment money back... So in short, Whats the point. ?... So how does a little drama, or any indie film with no name actors even get a chance to shine with so many boxes that need ticking.

And yes, I know there will be people out there saying.. just make it Mark, its not about the money Mark, do it for the love of cinema Mark. it's your passion Mark etc etc...
Unfortunately... thats a great way to slowly become depressed and broke, basically waste a year or two out of your life for know reason other than to (a) have a film on a shelf (b) sell it for peanuts (c) self gratification and a investor trying to kill you.

Sadly the Movie making model for Indi film makers is broken on the back end. Exactly what Steven S is saying.

Indie film break throughs 3 - 5 - 10 years ago was achievable, remembering there was little competition in the market place back then... now days.... Hundreds even thousands of indie films per year are being made, with hundreds finding there way into rubbish bins and the good ones being sold to greedy (vultures) buyers waiting and watching the guy with that great indi film to suffer tom the extent that they can come in buy his movie off him for peanuts.
Seen it so many times already, very depressing watching friends marriages , relationships, home being lost and then see the film playing on a big screen knowing that the sales agents and distributors, cinema owners are living fat off its back... When the film maker barely got 1/4 of his money back to pay his investors.

I think I missed the movie boat...

Im glad I have great day job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Marcos Montenegro, congratulations, you’re absolutely right, if you like it, SO WILL MANY OTHER PEOPLE. What a relive to NOT BE UNDER THE PRESSURE, AND EXPENSE OF A MOVIE STUDIO! Go-for-it, don’t play-it safe, all the best luck, and success. Remember my saying; “Anything you say in the “Movie Business” is “True”, no matter how outrageous it may be”! I would add; “You got to tried it”!

Humberto Rivera

 

[paulherrin]

remain calm...

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Terry VerHaar, I was reading you comment from the; “San Francisco International Film Festival recently where Ted Hope, Exec Director of the San Francisco Film Society, stated that 80% of filmmakers never make a second film.” The only thing is that Marcos Montenegro was at 100% (no film) to begin with. His first film is a work-in-progress, he has just embarked on it, and so he is not conscious of his next project yet! He still has more to shoot, and then post production, music, making prints, thinking about what languages he want to dub in, well a lot to think-about. But he did take the plunge, that’s what is important.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Micah Baskir]

Hey guys, what are your thoughts about making a cheap no-budget (under $10k), slick looking genre film. In this kind of situation with this low of a budget, is making a profit from a distributor (even a low-balling one) a possibility? I'm curious specifically about the money making aspect, more of just finding a distributer who would be willing to purchase for whatever distribution channel they would like (redbox, online, etc) and less about seeing my baby up on the big screen or anything. The idea would be to recoup cost and make some profit on the upfront sale and let the distributer figure out the rest. Any thoughts from the group on this re: Soderbergh's point?

-M

 

[Humberto Rivera]

I was thinking! People like; Frank Capra, Stanley Kubrick, Orson Wells, Steven Spielberg, David Lean, Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, William Wyler, Elia Kazan, Oliver Stone, Fred Zinnemann, John Ford, Michael Curtiz , Sam Peckinpah, François Truffaut, Akiro Kurosawa, the list goes on, and on, and on, and on, one thing is for sure we got a long tradition that precedes us.

They all had one thing in “Common”, they insisted on “Having it my way” to paraphrase the “Frank Sinatra” song! SPECIALLY the first to have “His name above the Titled”; Frank Capra, or to his parents Francesco Rosario Capra, born May 18, 1897, in Bisacquino, Sicily, Italy, died September 3, 1991 in Los Angles at the ripe age of 94. I highly recommend his book titled; “The Name Above the Titled”.

Here is to them all; “Here looking at you kid”!

Humberto Rivera

 

[Dan Hudgins]

For many reasons, not including the mutli-plex causing studios not wanting to make "adult" topic films (because of being sued if someone under 18 gets in), and the need for audances outside north america and Europe (that may not get the content through translation), much of what is produced is so "de balled" that its meaning less, and so somehow studios spend money on tv adds and other promotion to get a hit and run on a short run, all the more reason NOT to make film prints when the movie is only going to show for two weeks and be erased.

I went to a film talk pannel discussion once and someone on the pannel talking as a distributer answered someone's question by saying "films get the disribution they deserve", and I think for the most part that is true.

If you make a film that does not draw and audance or have legs, who do you have to blame, in part yourself not so much because you were a coward or mindless, but in agreeing to let the studio convince you that to get work you need to say nothing and offend knowone.

If films in theatres have nothing to offer other than CG and 3D then at some point there will be even less reason for films to be shown in theatres.

You can't blame the audience for not coming, its the filmmaker's job to give them a reason, and if the film is good in some way word of mouth is most of what is required to get other's to come see it, more so now with the internet to pass the word on about something unique and life changing.

It does not cost milllions of dollars to get a good film shown, because the world will beat a path to the person that makes a better mouse trap. People who think otherwise should re-assess the value of their own works.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Paramount & MGM Sued; http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/paramount-mgm-sued-by-g-i-joe-writers-for-23m/#more-491363 I guess the Major Distributer Go to court for any worthwhile reason that affects their Bottom Line!

TO QUOTE PART OF THE ARTICLE; “The Principato-Young Entertainment repped duo were the writers of the G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA movie back in 2009 along with Stuart Beattie. Not long after that film came out, they were requested to put together some ideas for a sequel with the understanding that they would get the scribe gig on the movie if their ideas were accepted. Though they put together a detailed plotline and characters descriptions, as well had extensive back and forth with the film’s producers like Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, it was just not meant to be. “On or around December 3, 2009, Defendants notified Plaintiffs that Defendants had decided to engage a different writing team to write the screenplay for the Sequel,” the complaint said. OK but when the movie came out the duo say it was their story on the screen with the sequel. “These original inventions, which make Plaintiffs’ Proposed Sequel a compelling piece of story-telling, have been stolen by the PDH Defendants in the hopes of infusing the Joe RETALIATION Movie with the blockbuster power of Plaintiffs’ Work,” their complaint adds. They are not credited at all on the 2013 sequel. Unlike many similar cases of alleged sticky fingers, Elliot and Lovett are established Hollywood screenplay writers. They previously worked with di Bonaventura on 2005′s gritty FOUR BROTHERS. The two are currently working on a MIDNIGHT RUN sequel for Universal with Brett Ratner attached to direct. Pushed back from its original late June 2012 release date to March 28, 2013 so 3D and more Channing Tatum could be added, the Jon Chu-directed film opened with a $132 million global gross. Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who wrote 2009’s ZOMBIELAND, were credited as the screenwriters on the sequel. Elliot and Lovett are represented by Henry Gradstein, Maryann Marzano and Robert Allen of LA firm Gradstein and Marzano.”

See you in a few years, or sooner with a “Sealed Settlement”!

Humberto Rivera

 

[Humberto Rivera]

I guess the current “Paramount & MGM Law Suite”, are just part of an the endless Law Suits that go on in Hollywood as part of “just-doing-business”, it’s when they get close to the how the “Hollywood Movie Business” operates, that’s when they tend to settled out of court, always with “Sealed Judgments”, everyone is expected to be quite for a price! And that’s “The Studio System” for better or worst. Every Business has “Conventions” and Hollywood is no exception, by “Conventions” I mean established norms, which are “Particular” to any Business. The only problem is, they are not really published anywhere, on the most part you have to consult your “Movie Lawyer” or “Entertainment Attorney” to find out!

Humberto Rivera

 

[paulherrin]

For many reasons, not including the mutli-plex causing studios not wanting to make "adult" topic films (because of being sued if someone under 18 gets in), and the need for audances outside north america and Europe (that may not get the content through translation), much of what is produced is so "de balled" that its meaning less, and so somehow studios spend money on tv adds and other promotion to get a hit and run on a short run, all the more reason NOT to make film prints when the movie is only going to show for two weeks and be erased.

I went to a film talk pannel discussion once and someone on the pannel talking as a distributer answered someone's question by saying "films get the disribution they deserve", and I think for the most part that is true.

If you make a film that does not draw and audance or have legs, who do you have to blame, in part yourself not so much because you were a coward or mindless, but in agreeing to let the studio convince you that to get work you need to say nothing and offend knowone.

If films in theatres have nothing to offer other than CG and 3D then at some point there will be even less reason for films to be shown in theatres.

You can't blame the audience for not coming, its the filmmaker's job to give them a reason, and if the film is good in some way word of mouth is most of what is required to get other's to come see it, more so now with the internet to pass the word on about something unique and life changing.

It does not cost milllions of dollars to get a good film shown, because the world will beat a path to the person that makes a better mouse trap. People who think otherwise should re-assess the value of their own works.

yeah, we would all do well, when we're working, to answer the question, 'why are you telling me this?'