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 :)

Steven Soderberh’s State Of Cinema Talk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now Panavision is being sued for $1.7M; http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/panavision-pulled-into-court-over-unpaid-debt/#more-514319 “Panavision Sued Over Unpaid Debt” By DOMINIC PATTEN - Wednesday June 5, 2013 @ 4:42pm PDT (deadline.com). It seems that companies we considered inflatable (Sony), are showing signs of weakness. More and more there are “chinks in their armor” they are showing that their financial are troubling. HOWEVER, Red Continues on its path to become the choice of many users with the best of products, the balance of power is slowly changing in Red’s favor. I’m not saying that they are going to fail, but the trend has taken a slow downward turn, WHILE Red continues to move upwards. Just an observation!

Humberto Rivera
 
Something caught my eye this morning in The Hollywood Reporter; “With worldwide marketing now costing as much as $175 million per film (gulp), THR sources reveal how box office, home entertainment and TV will contribute to each studio's bottom line.” http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/iron-man-3-hangover-3-562666 The Hollywood Reporter

I know that both the Movies Budget/Marketing figures are combined, but by any stretched of the Imagination, they seem quite high! To quote from the Article; “Numerous studio insiders tell THR that marketing a film worldwide can now cost $175 million.” The Hollywood Reporter

I think that a real projection, and that is what it-is, because we’ll never really know! It’s from what “Steven Soderberh” said $30M to $60M to the opposite side of the spectrum for Marketing Cost $175M for “Iron Man 3”, but who really knows, there are lot of hidden cost.

Humberto Rivera
 
We know for example that film like “Flight”; Directed by Robert Zemeckis, Photograph by Don Burgess, ASC, and staring Denzel Washington was a Paramount Picture, but yet it only had a budget of $30M. http://www.hdvideopro.com/display/features/mayday.html

The film earnings were way above-expectation, so Hollywood continues to get it way wrong, no matter how hard they tried to stick to what has been successful in the past, like Disney’s John Carter (Bomb)!

“Paramount Slams Wall Street In Financing Lawsuit” By DOMINIC PATTEN - Friday June 7, 2013 @ 11:12am PDT http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/paramount-slams-wall-street-in-financing-lawsuit/#more-515796

TO QUOTE; “Why is this lawsuit important? Because, as Deadline’s Nikki Finke has previously reported, the way that Hollywood studios finance their pictures is very important to the overall health of the industry. It’s not crucial for survival, but it does let moguls sleep sounder at night. That’s why Fox has DUNE, Warner Bros has LEGENDARY (though for how long?), Disney had KINGDOM, both Sony and Universal had RELATIVITY for a time, etc. Under normal circumstances, No overall financial deal places Paramount’s parent company Viacom almost solely on the hook for underwriting new slates of pictures, which is like a tightrope walker working without a net. Remember what happened to the WALLENDAS? And, in this case directly, there are millions at stake “Since the fall of 2007, Content Partners has knowingly and intentionally interfered with Paramount’s contractual relationships, misappropriated its trade secrets, and improperly received and retained more than $35 million in payments by Paramount. Paramount is entitled to disgorgement of those amounts and to recovery of the damages that continue to accrue as a result of Content Partners’ wanton misconduct,” THE COMPLAINT SAYS.” dealine.com

Remember this is a Cross-Complaint, after the Judge Retired, it began in 2010, that’s a while back, JUST SAYING, the Hollywood Lawyers at work!

Humberto Rivera

http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp...nt-Partners-Cross-Complaint__130607175102.pdf Cross-Complaint
 
http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp...nt-Partners-Cross-Complaint__130607175102.pdf The Paramount Cross Complaint is sited herein for illustrative and informational purposes only! For the complete version look at the pdf page sited herein!

A PARTIAL QUOTE, STARTING ON PAGE #8 OF THE CROSS COMPLAINT CITED HEREIN; “25. From approximately May through September 1996, Paramount negotiated with Mr. Hoffman the terms of the Revenue Participation Agreement that was ultimately made and entered into as of September 25, 1996 by and between CineVisions and Paramount (the "First RPA") with respect to the motion pictures entitled "THE PHANTOM," "BEAUTICIAN AND THE BEAST," "ll’ N OUT," and "TRUMAN SHOW."

26. During the negotiation of the First RPA, Paramount and Mr. Hoffman discussed the shares of "Net Receipts" from the exploitation of the pictures that would be paid to CineVisions and that would be retained by Paramount. Specifically, Paramount and Mr. Hoffman discussed and agreed upon the following participation "corridors":

a. From the theatrical release of a picture, and after recoupment of certain distribution fees and costs by Paramount, forty percent (40%) of Net Receipts from the domestic and/or foreign territories, as applicable, would be paid to CineVisions, and the remaining sixty percent (60%) of Net Receipts would be retained by Paramount, until such time as CineVisions had recouped its purchase price for a picture plus reasonable costs, expenses, and interest (the "CineVisions Recoupment Point"), thereby paying off the loan with respect to that picture.

b. From the CineVisions Recoupment Point, one hundred percent (100%) of Net Receipts would be retained by Paramount until such time as Paramount had recouped its "Direct Cost" for the picture together with interest thereon (the "Paramount Recoupment Point")

C. Thereafter, forty percent (40%) of Net Receipts received by Paramount after the Paramount Recoupment Point would be available to assist CineVisions in recouping its purchase price (and repaying the loans) on other pictures in the slate. Paramount and Mr. Hoffman generally referred to this forty percent (40%) of "excess" Net Receipts as the "crossing" corridor.

27. Paramount’s and CineVisions’ agreement to the foregoing terms was memorialized in the First RPA. JPMorgan and its counsel reviewed and commented on various drafts of the First RPA. A copy of the First RPA was attached to the Credit and Security Agreement dated as of September 26, 1996, as subsequently amended and restated (the "First Loan Agreement"), pursuant to which JPMorgan and other syndicate banks loaned CineVisions the monies it then used to fund a portion of the budgets of the pictures. The loans were secured by the monies due to CineVisions under the First RPA.

28. The First RPA required CineVisions and its permitted assigns to protect the confidentiality of all information submitted or disclosed to them by Paramount. Specifically, the First RPA provided that all information disclosed by Paramount "shall be deemed confidential, shall not be disclosed to any third Person, and shall be protected with the same degree of care as the Recipient uses for the protection of its own confidential and proprietary information." The First RPA permitted CineVisions and its permitted assigns to share information disclosed by Paramount only with JPMorgan and other syndicated banks under the First Loan Agreement, as well as the insurers who insured the loans, "provided that such Person agrees, in writing, to keep the information confidential."

29. The First RPA contained express limitations on any assignment of CineVisions’ rights thereunder, as well as any modification or amendment of the First Loan Agreement. Specifically, the First RPA afforded CineVisions the right to sell, assign, transfer, or hypothecate all or any part of its rights only to JPMorgan or an entity that became "subrogated" to the rights of JPMorgan, including the insurers. CineVisions was otherwise barred from assigning the First RPA, or any of its rights thereunder, without Paramount’s prior written consent, and any other purported transfer by CineVisions or its permitted assigns was declared "invalid and void" and "of no force or 6 effect whatsoever." In addition, CineVisions agreed "for the express benefit of Paramount, that the Loan Agreement shall not be modified or amended to the detriment of Paramount without the prior written consent of Paramount."” Paramount Cross Complaint Filed June 6, 2013, Los Angeles Superior Court

This pdf file shows just one of many way that the Studios finance a film, there are many more! The quoted pages along with the enclosed pdf file are cited herein for illustrative purposes only, and they give but a glimpse into the sometimes secretive manner in which your movies are being financed by the Hollywood Studios’.

Humberto Rivera
 
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/paramount-alleges-jpmorgan-led-financial-564708 Paramount Alleges JPMorgan-Led Financial Conspiracy (Exclusive)
10:26 AM PDT 6/7/2013 by Eriq Gardner

To quote; “According to explosive new court documents, the largest bank in the United States thought it was making "risk-free" loans to fund major films, and when that turned out to be wrong, a secret deal was made to cause trouble for the studio.” The Hollywood Reporter

Paramount’s Cross-Complaint in full; http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/si...ocuments/ESQ/THR_paramount_CrossComplaint.pdf

TO CONTINUE WITH THE QUOTE; “Banks have long played a big part in financing films. Up until recently, banks would lend to a producer a portion of the production costs in return for a promise to repay plus interest. Fairly simple. But in the mid-1990s, banks began lending against a portion of the future proceeds generated by exploitation of the picture. Thus, the birth of slate financing. Over the past decade, most Hollywood studios have struck slate financing deals with Wall Street banks and hedge funds.

To make things more complex, banks started working with insurers whereby the latter would agree to repay any loan amounts that remained outstanding after a picture's release. This was done to hedge risk.

In the cross-complaint, Paramount says that JPMorgan "was a pioneer in insurance-backed financing deals."

In 1996, Paramount says it made the first of a series of these new kind of deals called Revenue Participation Agreements. That deal covered the films The Phantom, The Beautician and the Beast, In & Out and Truman Show. A special-purpose company was set up that entered into a credit agreement with JPMorgan. That company would receive a share of receipts from the films, which it would assign to JPMorgan as security for the loans. The bank used insurance policies to cover any shortfall from the loan amounts and the money paid out by Paramount.” The Hollywood Reporter

This is the natural extension of what I said in the above thread; #124!

Humberto Rivera
 
Continuing!

TO QUOTE; “Banks have long played a big part in financing films. Up until recently, banks would lend to a producer a portion of the production costs in return for a promise to repay plus interest. FAIRLY SIMPLE. But in the mid-1990s, banks began lending against a PORTION OF THE FUTURE PROCEEDS generated by exploitation of the picture. THUS, THE BIRTH OF SLATE FINANCING. Over the past decade, most Hollywood studios have struck slate financing deals with Wall Street banks and hedge funds. To make things more complex, banks started working with insurers whereby the latter would agree to repay any loan amounts that remained outstanding after a picture's release. This was done to hedge risk.” The Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/paramount-alleges-jpmorgan-led-financial-564708

CONTINUING; “One of JPMorgan's first deals using this financial structure -- the financing of The Mirror Has Two Faces from Mike Medavoy's Phoenix Pictures -- erupted in litigation in 1999 and Paramount says "it seemed a virtual certainty that JPMorgan would face the same denials of coverage in connection with insurance policies related to the Paramount transactions, and that JPMorgan and the other syndicate banks would be saddled with numerous loans in default."

NOW ENTERED THE OPPOSITION; http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...tened-malicious-prosecution-conspiracy-564762 Paramount Threatened with Malicious Prosecution Over Conspiracy Claim 11:52 AM PDT 6/7/2013 by Eriq Gardner

HOWEVER MARTY SINGER THREATENED; “Singer says he's been practicing law for 35 years. "This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen," he says. He says that Paramount has KNOWN about the transaction between JPMorgan and Content Partners for years. "We have documentation," says the attorney, adding that Content Partners was a competitor when Paramount engaged in negotiations TO BUY BACK FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION on hit films like The Truman Show, Face/Off and Runaway Bride. The suggestion of a conspiracy is an "ABSOLUTE LIE,"” says Singer.

Most law suit almost never see the light of day in public, Hollywood Lawyers go on all the time, to pay back the people they borrow from, and hardly ever are in-the Producers Best Interest, that’s how it works at the Major Studios! I could be wrong, but I doubt it!

Humberto Rivera
 
I was thinking; “THE BIRTH OF SLATE FINANCING”; in-there are a lot of hidden cost; Interest, Insurance, Legal Fees, Special Accounting, Hedge Funds, Studio Executive Fees, and whatever else they can imagine in secret! ALL OF THE COST eventually will end up in the Production and Distribution Fees charged against the Production of a Particular Film.

I wonder how almost ANY FILM can accurately see a NET PROFIT, and the fees are CONTINUING. Do you ever wonder why the people that run the Studios are often called Moguls by some? Think about it!

TO QUOTE WIKIPEDIA; “During the so-called Golden Age, eight companies constituted the so-called major studios that promulgated the HOLLYWOOD STUDIO SYSTEM. Of these eight, five were fully integrated conglomerates, combining ownership of a production studio, distribution division, and substantial theater chain, and contracting with performers and filmmaking personnel: Fox Film Corporation (later 20th Century-Fox), Loew’s Incorporated (owner of America's largest theater circuit and parent company to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), Paramount Pictures, RKO Radio Pictures, and Warner Bros. Two majors—Universal Pictures and Columbia Pictures—were similarly organized, though they never owned more than small theater circuits. The eighth of the Golden Age majors, United Artists, owned a few theaters and had access to two production facilities owned by members of its controlling partnership group, but it functioned primarily as a backer-distributor, loaning money to independent producers and releasing their films.” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system

Humberto Rivera
 
After the Snow Storm of Google and other Technology Giants faced with the U.S. Government, and its clients’, it’s refreshing to see-it involved in seeing if Feature Films are going to succeed. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/google-box-office-prediction-tool-566330 “Big tracking firms and studio marketers dismiss the search engine giant's boast of 92 percent accuracy.” 7:00 AM PDT 6/12/2013 by Gregg Kilday

I could not help from noticing that they in fact have competitors, TO QUOTE; “Google doesn't plan, however, to start charging studios for such information the way other tracking services such as NGR and MARKETCAST do. "We're going to offer this as a courtesy to our clients," says Reggie Panaligan, Google's senior analytic lead. That doesn't mean that if a film is underperforming, Google will use its findings to encourage clients to buy more search ads. "We are not suggesting causation," he adds. "You can't really buy search query volume. That's organic; it comes from things like trailers, billboards. If a studio is unhappy about what we are predicting, we won't say search is the missing element." Still, other competitors are asking, where's the beef? "Tell us how a movie is going to perform," says Ben Carlson, president of FIZZIOLOGY, which measures chatter on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to offer its own predictions. "I may be a bit of a purist, but I'd prefer that my advertising and my research not have a direct relationship." The Hollywood Reporter

The TRUTH of the matter is; NO ONE KNOWS, and that’s a fact, that’s why there is always a surprise or two, when one least expected, it’s all a CRAPSHOOT!

Humberto Rivera
 
Randall Weatherington provided a link to Variety Article that I also found very interesting; http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/lucas-spielberg-on-future-of-entertainment-1200496241/ the link could be found in the thread; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?101455-Lucas-amp-Spielberg-discuss-the-future-of-cinema

It was George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, the two were speaking at; USC School of Cinematic Arts! What I found interesting was, TO QUOTE; “There’ll be big movies on a big screen, and it’ll cost them a lot of money. Everything else will be on a small screen. It’s almost that way now. ‘Lincoln’ and ‘Red Tails’ barely got into theaters. You’re talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can’t get their movies into theaters.” Both see “quirky” or more personal content migrating to streaming video-on-demand, where niche audiences can be aggregated. “What used to be the movie business, in which I include television and movies … will be Internet television,” said Lucas.

Where are we now! What has Hollywood brought us! Where are we heading! If films like LINCOLN and RED TAILS have trouble succeeding in getting THEATER DISTRIBUTION, they eventually did succeed, but had a fight on their hands but what about the Independent Producer/Filmmaker? George Lucas had to put his own money, and his campaign was not what it’s should have been because of delays, and that in fact affected all the ancillary markets!

It’s like you struggle to get a Film (Theatrical Motion Picture), you can’t find a “Theater to Show” it, or at least you have to fight to find them, and that’s Spielberg and Lucas! What about Joe Smith!

Humberto Rivera
 
Steven Spielberg warns of two-tier price structure, TO QUOTE; “Spielberg warns of two-tier pricing structure for movies with tickets for blockbusters rising to $25 while other films cost $7” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-rising-25-dollars-films-cost-7-dollars.html

TO CONTINUE TO QUOTE; “Steven Spielberg has predicted that the movie industry could soon move to a two-tier pricing structure with consumers being charged a premium to see summer blockbusters compared with other types of films. ‘You're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see LINCOLN,’ Spielberg told students at the University of Southern California. Spielberg was speaking at the opening of a new media center at the University of Southern California, where he was joined by his friend and peer George Lucas.” dailymail.co.uk

Now IF that happens, is that going to be for the benefit of the “Big Studios” that already have a STRANGLE HOLD in the industry! But who really knows, there is bound to be a revolt from the “Theater Owners”, maybe! What IF people start-going to see the lower price films, it’s all up in the air! And what about the “John Carters” of the world, or the movies at the lower end that have big-paydays!

Humberto Rivera
 
Nick, I also agree that Netlfix streaming model is going to gain ground, along with other competitors that eventually will appear; they always do. They will be somewhere between “Theatrical Distribution” and “The Pay Channels”, like HBO, that’s where they will squeeze-in! I personally don’t think that the current “Theatrical Opening” is going to change the current PARADIGM. After all, there are approximately 40,000 “Motion Pictures Screens” in the entire World (take or give a few thousands).

That’s a huge investment in Real Estate! Do you think that they will stand still for anyone gaining-ground on them! It will be a hard fought battled! The do control the price charged to see a Movie, they are the ones that take in the CASH, to then put it in the Bank, and send it up the chain, eventually to the hands of the Distributor!

However, I do see the possibility of the Big Studios IMPLODING (as Steven Spielberg said), what does that mean; well their stock can come down substantially, they may change hands, new owners will take over, it could happen, who knows? Maybe Harvey Weinstein might actually become a Big Studio Head? Columbia Pictures (Sony electronics is doing very badly), Paramount, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Brothers. I left out Disney and Universal because they have other souses of revenues.

Humberto Rivera
 
Nick Morrison said:
I think the Netlfix streaming model is going to certainly challenge the status quo.
Click to expand...

Netflix is a real problem. If they start top have a monopoly on home-viewing revenue, then smaller films will have little to no chance of getting financed (even less than now).

We need repercussion for piracy, more legal alternatives for buying and renting content online.

Netlix really gouges producers. They pay almost nothing for content, and this is why many studios are reluctant to help them in any way.

As for the studio system, I don;t understand why it imploding would be a good thing. They pay fair wages for writers, directors and all crew - yes they lowballed FX suppliers, but less than indy producers did. They are publicly held corporations, so at some level they can only behave badly to a certain extent with their employees and suppliers. This is much more than I can say for many indy prods. I know many writers and directors working the indy circuits who make less than minimum wage, working in L.A. and NYC. One guy I know, very talented, very accomplished, lives with his parents at 36. He works 100 hour weeks routinely, and that's what he gets for it.

Something has to give.
 
Last edited:
Robert, I agree with EVERYTHING you say! If the “Studio System” were to implode someone will be there to handle the pieces (common stock), as for “Theatrical Distribution”, the investment in Real Estate is too vast, diversified, and wide spread throughout the World! They have something to protect. Independent Production continues to grow an exponential rate, brakes have not been invented for that industry, and they will always be SOMETHING TO SAY!

I personally think that what’s going on, AND IT’S ONLY PERSONALLY, is that Spielberg wanted a “Studio Involved” in the traditional sense of a “Film Distributor”. Being Spielberg at the end he succeeds in getting his way. On George Lucas, it was a bit more complicated, he put his own money to make the picture, because he belief it should be told, and then was asked to help with Distribution as well, what any “Independent Filmmaker” would-do. Then he turned around and sold the entire Studio to Disney for $4B.

Humberto Rivera
 
Netflix is a big problem for us little guys as previously stated. They pay little for content without BO returns and name talent. Those two things and those two things alone will drastically improve your licensing agreement. I got $10,000 for my little straight to video movie ($8k being my net take). However, a movie a friend of mine made which pulled in $5mil at the Box Office yielded a $600k streaming agreement and another that made $1.3mil brought in $125k or so. For us guys making films that cost a couple hundred thousand or so (or <$200k)...maybe 500k max, it's tough for streaming to make much financial sense. My DVD sales held for over 2.5 years until I hit Netflix Streaming and then they dropped like a rock and haven't recovered.

I'm also weary of digital download content as a whole, since the margins are lower and you require more sales to make the same amount you can pull in from DVD's. DVD's in the market I personally work in are still top dog in regards to margins and will hold out for quite some time...likely longer then the typical market since there's a lot of older buyers within it. They like the discs. People 10 years ago wouldn't have thought twice about buying the latest movie out at $19.99. Today you see new movies with prices slashed heavily and movies only a year or two old being sold for $9.96 or less at your local Walmart.

The margins are getting smaller...and the budgets aren't getting any smaller. Something's gotta give. I'm going to hang onto physical DVD sales and distribution as long as humanly possible, because once things go fully digital and my market is interested in digital, the model is going to have to change drastically, even more so then it already has with prices hitting the floor. I'll need double the sales/audience just to keep up with the profits I'm used to.
 
Humberto Rivera said:
We know for example that film like “Flight”; Directed by Robert Zemeckis, Photograph by Don Burgess, ASC, and staring Denzel Washington was a Paramount Picture, but yet it only had a budget of $30M. http://www.hdvideopro.com/display/features/mayday.html

The film earnings were way above-expectation, so Hollywood continues to get it way wrong, no matter how hard they tried to stick to what has been successful in the past, like Disney’s John Carter (Bomb)!
Click to expand...

That's not an everyday case though. Not every day does a film perform beyond expectation, nor does a star like Denzel always take such a huge pay cut. A typical Denzel movie vehicle would normally be worth $20mil (for him) alone. Flight being made for $30M also had a lot to do with it being shot almost entirely in GA around Atlanta and in very few days, with the tax incentives taking center stage. There's plenty of room for movies in that budget range, but lets not act like a movie like Flight with a huge star taking a massive pay cut is something that could happen every day.

The challenge is the same with Hollywood and with little indie-filmmakers like me. Totally different range of numbers, profits, markets, demographics, etc...but the need for profit is always there. It comes down to simple ratios of how much you spent and how much you made lol. The only number I have personal control over is what I spend. Anything beyond that is based on trust in an idea aimed at a particular audience with a proven distribution pipeline.

Thankfully, companies like RED and others are making it possible to do movies that can look fantastic on cheaper and cheaper budgets, and FASTER which any shooters here know is where the real money can be saved...in TIME. Time = money.
 
Kyle, you’re absolutely right, what a “Movie Makes” at the “Box Office” throughout the World determines the price for just about anything else that comes afterwards. Netlfix is just one of those many things that come after a “Theatrical Opening”, DVD sales, sales to Pay Television, syndication to television, ancillary sales and so forth.

To sell a movie you need a buzz going in the internet before, small in the six months prior, and then Really Big the weeks before it opens; you need magazine coverage in all kinds of publication (the more the better), then the Leak Trailer a month or two before, then the Big Expense ADVERTISING (this is a guess, how soon before it opens, in which countries)! The when the times comes, you got-to close your eyes and wait and see what happens!

Yes you do have to look for any place that may give you a “Tax Incentive” which means that you have to adapt your film to a place that looks like many places. Puerto Rico comes to mind, it’s a Commonwealth of the United States, but not bound by its Tax Code (taxation without representation, it’s in the Constitution of the United States). I think they have the lowest cost, but there are other States, like Louisiana, Georgia, and others.

http://prfilm.nfshost.com/ The Puerto Rico Film Commission web page! http://prfilm.nfshost.com/shooting-in-pr/puerto-rico/ Incentives http://prfilm.nfshost.com/incentives/production-incentives/ If you’re a US Citizen you could become a resident of Puerto Rico, use Dollars, and use your US Credential like any other State of the Union!

You’re absolutely correct when you say; “The challenge is the same with Hollywood and with little indie-filmmakers like me. Totally different range of numbers, profits, markets, demographics, etc...but the need for profit is always there. It comes down to simple ratios of how much you spent and how much you made lol. The only number I have personal control over is what I spend. Anything beyond that is based on trust in an idea aimed at a particular audience with a proven distribution pipeline.” Kyle Prohaska

Humberto Rivera
 
I got-to say this, the best stuff in any Post never comes while I’m writing it; it always come after I posted the Thread. For example I left out (post #138) promoting heavily on Television, local and national. Foreign Language promotion, print and television, Film Festivals, go to as many as possible! Always remember; “Anything you say in the “Movie Business” is “True”, no matter how outrageous it may be”!

George they good for a lot things, look in-any-small-town in America, but before that happens there is going to be a huge battle in the World. I personally think they will be just fine, at least during my lifetime! For while I lived in a small town in North America, Morro Bay, California, and the Theater was the place to be seen and see other people, along with my three children and wife. The place was abuzz with everyone talking at the same time before the Movie began, but then it got quiet and we all watched the Film.

Humberto Rivera
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top