"Corrado" - A production blog

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking of distribution I wanted to mention that while I was in my meeting, I learned some valuable info.

Firstly, the distrib is new but big, with 45 films distributed in the last 3 years, most of them much bigger than Corrado.

Secondly, they were cool with my cast, but only for the budget of the movie. They only really liked Sizemore and Messner - the rest they were ambivalent about.

Main rule I learned from today's meeting:

TV actors do not sell features, especially in the foreign market. They were pretty unimpressed with my Sopranos people. They literally poo pooed them. If you are making a feature, you need names to sell it - this is self explanatory. No names = slim chances for distribution.

The names that sell movies are a bit of a moving target though. There is a real art to picking your cast, an art that I have not yet mastered apparently.

Sizemore is a favorite of mine, but his recent troubles have hurt his ability to do studio pics which has made him less desireable.

Messner is currently in favor with the distribs, especially foreign. They didn't really say why.

TV actors are total ****. I've gone through three of these conversations with big, reputable distributors. They simply do not sell. Can you have them in your movie? Sure, but don't expect to help them sell it for you. I was told that only the very hugest TV guys have a chance: Kiefer Sutherland, James Gandolfini, etc. And even then it's a tough sell.

I was told that ideally you want actors who do indies and studio pics - Dennis Quaid and Matt Dillon were thrown out as examples of stable, bankable actors who are also affordable and can be bonded.

The whole discussion really prompted me to rethink my casting of Hangar 14. Apparently Gary Oldman is not a sellable name!!!!

These guys aren't just making this up - they know this because they attend multiple film markets every year and sell tons of movies. They hear what the buyers are telling them.

New plan with Hangar 14: Run my cast list past my distrib before making calls to agents.
 
over the last 4-5 months I've been seeking out a home for two features (currently in post). a few distributers have made sh*tty offers. and I rejected them. Magnolia Pictures is bugging me to see a locked cut of Heart of Now, but I'm not interested in selling it. i'll do non-exclusive, but i'm not letting go entirely. it's the smart move in the long term for a niche content provider like me (sabi). the more I've read and researched and learned, it was clear I could make a hell of a lot more dough investing money into building and branding my own distribution company -- one that lived on the cutting edge of where distribution models are headed. the old model is on its way out and new opportunities are emerging. i plan to capitalize on that.

Interesting philosophy. I personally am not into branding a company - I just want to make more movies and therefore want to move this one. What was the budget on Heart of Now?
 
"Apparently Gary Oldman is not a sellable name!!!!"

According to which godlike authority?

Come on Adam...industry types will say all kinds of sh*t. Doesn't make it true...

Harry Potter, a $300M film, with a major featured role by Oldman, who did a great job, is what...chopped liver?

Think...
 
TV actors are total shi*. I've gone through three of these conversations with big, reputable distributors. They simply do not sell. Can you have them in your movie? Sure, but don't expect to help them sell it for you. I was told that only the very hugest TV guys have a chance: Kiefer Sutherland, James Gandolfini, etc. And even then it's a tough sell.
This I heard when I attended a Dov Simmons seminar. His take is that people generally can't see spending money to see what they can see on TV for free.
 
well maybe BEACUSE he was in harry potter he's not marketable.


You'll note that I said he can be in your movie, and it will be better if he is.....the part I left out is that he is not a leading man. The last movie I remember him as a lead in is probably Dracula.

Sirius Black and Commissioner Gordon are two bit parts in giant franchises - perfect roles for him.

That's more or less what the guy said anyways.
 
Foreign buyers ask for different "names" every market. You put their favorite name in the movie and rush to the market only to find out they're out of business and the next buyer from their territory has no use for the "name" the last buyer wanted.

Furthermore, foreign buyers ask for the names of actors they see on their television. It's whatever is hot at the time. You'd be surprised how ridiculous it gets.

If you're an indie filmmaker, go by your gut feeling for whoever you cast in your movie. By all means listen to what the buyers are saying, but rely on your own judgment. Pick those actors that are good for your story. Make the movies you believe in. If not you'll be sorry down the line. Distribution is a treacherous business and your sensibilities as an artist should be more precious.

I like what you said, Zack. Distribution is changing and it's not smart to take peanuts for your movie as an advance from a distributor who will sell you down the river.

But if you have a distributor interested in a movie from the pre-production stage, or at script stage, then you should stick with that distributor like glue, especially if the distributor is going to advance the production budget (which in Corrado's case is around $600,000).

You will achieve a number of things:

1) Your investors will get their money back.
2) As a producer you are validated. Investors and distributors will work with you in the future.
3) You'll be able to make another movie.
4) You might get more money from the back end after the movie takes back 2 and a half time its negative cost.

If $600,000 is peanuts to you, okay, hold out for more and get properly compensated. Personally I wouldn't hold my breath for a distributor to pay me $1,200,000 for a movie that was shot on digital with no major stars attached. But I could be wrong. I really hope I am...

Good luck.
 
Good post, filmman.

Not sure if you are referring to Corrado when you say $1,200,00 with no major stars, but it is interesting to note that so far no one has asked me what I shot the movie on.

Even those who have seen the demo. Maybe it's not as important as it used to be. Heck - I'm only 35-40K from a film out if push comes to shove.
 
The discussion here is intriguing, and it's true, for foreign, the "names" are what sells the product... domestic is another ballgame...
 
it is interesting to note that so far no one has asked me what I shot the movie on.

Even those who have seen the demo. Maybe it's not as important as it used to be.

It's probably because well lit HVX200 footage looks a lot like film. Theatre-scale projection may draw the question, but maybe not.
 
My god, I started reading this thread at around 1 a.m. and it is now almost 8 in the morning here in MN.

What a remarkable and inspirational thread.

Thanks so much for your time and effort Adam, I can't wait to see the film!
 
I just finished editing Felliniesque Players, a feature length movie, my first foray into digital movie making. Recently I saw HiDef projection of many short films at the Kodak Theater. My heart sank. I realized that the accursed day was upon us when we would never again see 35mm movies in our favorite theaters.

Then I saw another day of projections at an AMC theater and the sharpness of the projection was much better. Both projections were made from HiDef content on hard drives. So maybe once the projection equipment is sorted out, and the right projectors have been installed, then the screenings will begin to approach 35mm film. Well, it's the trend of the future. The economics of it all cannot be faulted. Everybody and his uncle will be able to hold a theatrical screening of their movies -- somewhere.

Now festivals are accepting DVCAM and DigiBeta. And so Corrado will be projected as a digital movie as well and no one will know the difference, no one will ask "what it was shot on?"

As I approach the distributors with an external hard drive in my hand, I wonder if I can say, "I'm looking for 1.2 mill for my movie here." I'll knock on my hard drive, "It's all in here, the 90 minute feature, the artword, the M&E, and the Press Book; it's all in here." Will they laugh at me?

I throw in the towel :)
 
Like I said it's really easy and cheap to do a film out if they want that. And I don't know where the 1.2 figure comes from - that's quite a bit lower than I expect personally. Not necessarily as one big cash advance, but still lower than I expect.
 
I'm sure Zak will explain that....

I disagree with that idea, though.

I realize the promise of internet distribution and downloadable content has got people pretty fired up, but when 60% of a film's revenue comes from foreign sales, you have to remember that some of the places the movie is going to the technology is still pretty antiquated.

And no offense to anyone here, because it's not intended as a cut in any way shape or form....the only people that I hear "the model is changing" lines from are people with micro budget art house features with very little commercial appeal and that do not fit the distribution mold.

I know several filmmakers - very talented ones (way more than me) who have $200K art films that are amazing and can't get a normal distribution deal with a decent cash advance and actually recoup their budget. Why? They have created an unsellable albeit beautiful and award winning product that they are stuck with.

Which leads them to utter such statements as "the model is flawed' , "it's all going to change", "The internet will democratize film distribution so we can get our movie seen" and things like that.

In my opinion, it's not the model that's flawed, it's the product. They are making movies no one wants to watch except film festival judges, who we all know have an agenda to begin with.

It's just my opinion.

To further prove my point - I was told yesterday in my distrib meeting of a decent horror film made by two brothers for $60K. No one was in it. It was such a good little movie that it was picked up by a major distributor..Lions "cough" Gate.... and they were given a $350K advance beside their distrib deal. Pretty awesome hey? You know why? They went out and made a sellable little movie with no frills. I supposed to keep the name of the film to myself, but I can tell you they did this deal last year.

The standard distribution model is alive and well.
 
Last edited:
I realize the promise of internet distribution and downloadable content has got people pretty fired up, but when 60% of a film's revenue comes from foreign sales, you have to remember that some of the places the movie is going to the technology is still pretty antiquated.

That may be true today - but I do think it's clear that the trend is going towards greater opportunities via alternative distribution channels (the internet being one of them).
Technology moves quickly - and I'm not saying traditional channels are going the way of the dinosaur, only that new opportunities are surfacing.

I hear "the model is changing" lines from are people with micro budget art house features with very little commercial appeal and that do not fit the distribution mold.

I know what you're saying - but that doesn't necessarily make the message itself wrong. I think most will find that even under a new distribution model unmarketable products won't find a home.... but when you've got Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner talking about how the old model is changing, you have to admit there is something to it.

In my opinion, it's not the model that's flawed, it's the product. They are making movies no one wants to watch except film festival judges, who we all know have an agenda to begin with.

Well - first I wouldn't say it's one or the other. The model could be flawed AND someone's movie could suck, right?
:)

But honestly I don't even think it's an issue of the model being 'flawed' - it's an issue of the model changing. This has little to do with right or wrong, it's just the nature of technology. Like evolution, environmental pressures bring about change. It's not that a certain method of distribution is right or wrong, but that things that may not have been possible in the past will be possible very soon. Does that mean traditional distribution models will no longer exist? Probably not. But it does mean that there will be avenues for smaller films that previously didn't have a chance of being heard over the noise.

All that said - of course I think you're right - if your film is unmarketable and unwatchable, no radical change in the distribution channels is going to help you.
First and foremost you need to have a marketable product - but a film that may not have been efficiently marketable in the pasts may be able to find an audience in the coming years.

It's just my opinion.

Just mine too.
:)


I supposed to keep the name of the film to myself, but I can tell you they did this deal last year.

Oddly enough their film is far from your standard 'horror flick.' They actually fall much more into the 'talkie indie' crowd than you might think. I woudln't go so far as to call it 'art house' stuff, but close. They also happen to make really fantastic and engaging films.

The standard distribution model is alive and well.

Absolutely.
But it is changing... or maybe 'growing' would be a better term?
 
Just realized we may have been talking about two different movies.....
The film I was talking about was picked up by Sony, not Lion's Gate




EDITED TO ADD:
Of course none of this is really relevant in a discussion about 'Corrado' - which is clearly aimed at the standard and established distribution model and seems like it will fit into that incredibly well.

Sorry to the thread jack.
:)
 
Geez Luis - you scared me!

They were like "Make sure this information doesn't leave this room" And I was wondering how I left enough clues to let it slip!!!!!!!!

LOL!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top