Corrado Part II

[Gohanto]

One other thing to add, critical acclaim is hard to measure. After all, Vertigo (my favorite film) got panned when initially released and only later did critics go back and realize it's greatness.

Or Jaws, which Spielberg pleaded to get out of shooting a month before filming started because even he thought it was "just a stupid B-movie".

Plus in the area of action films, they just aren't nominated for non-technical awards no matter how fantastic they are... Alien, Heat, Collateral, The Matrix, Sin City, ect...

Which I think just leads to the idea that Oscar's shouldn't be the final goal, but making commercial successful films that mean something to you.

 

[Ted Spencer]

I just want to reiterate that people need to get themselves on the map and make and distribute a film rather than nursing that profound script for years.

Hard to argue, that...

 

[Dvader]

I'd take $1 billion in sales anyday over 5 oscars.

After all, money is the determining factor for success. Oscar's don't pay the bills but are nice acolades to have.

Remember too that a big plug for directors is "His movies have grossed well in excess of $2 Billion (or whatever) at the box office"

I'll tell you the main reason Ridley is my idol: He possesses the rare combination of profound storytelling, critical acclaim AND commercial viability.

Example: Gladiator - won 5 Oscars, grossed $456 million worldwide. The dude can make a movie, have it NOT be some artsy drivel, win Oscars, and make money.

That's my goal!

I just want to reiterate that people need to get themselves on the map and make and distribute a film rather than nursing that profound script for years.

I agree with 'getting on the map' because that can lead to the ability of making those films you do feel profoundly about, which I'd hope that's why makes cinema to begin with.

This is kind of pointless really but I'd never take Michael Bays career of mad millions and butts in seats over Ingmar Bergman's career of mad influence (and not just on cinema but on life) and artistic integrity.

I don't see a need to diss on Michael Bay films, or anyones for that matter, and thats not what I'm was trying to do above, so in that sense where's the merit in referring to other people's work as "artsy drivel"?

And ChipG, I don't think in any way that "success" is hinged on money alone, 'financial success' yes, thats obvious right, but just "success," quite certainly not. It's natural to be inclined nowadays to the business of your work, we do live in a capitalistic nation and the world has become commercial, but "success" is not solely dependent on money.

But hey maybe I'm wrong, in the words of Albert Einstein, aim not for a life of success but for a life of virtue, but don't forget that Mark Twain felt that virtue has never been as respectable as money, so anecdotally I'll leave on Don Cheadle's line in Boogie Nights, "wear what you dig".

 

[ChipG]

And ChipG, I don't think in any way that "success" is hinged on money alone, 'financial success' yes, thats obvious right, but just "success," quite certainly not. It's natural to be inclined nowadays to the business of your work, we do live in a capitalistic nation and the world has become commercial, but "success" is not solely dependent on money.

But hey maybe I'm wrong, in the words of Albert Einstein, aim not for a life of success but for a life of virtue, but don't forget that Mark Twain felt that virtue has never been as respectable as money, so anecdotally I'll leave on Don Cheadle's line in Boogie Nights, "wear what you dig".

I'm sorry man, my fault. I ment financial success because it is what most studios want and it allows us to produce other projects. Show me the $$$

And yes I agree there are many other things you can be a success at in life that do not have anything to do with money. But, Damn! it is nice

 

[taormina]

Well Kubrick the thing is this, it's not ALL about money but it's MOSTLY about money....in the beginning. If you want to make the thought provokers as a living, they had better put butts in seats as you've stated because if they don't, you won't find money to make more thought provokers (assuming we are speaking of real film budgets here not 'no budget' movies).

These are films, not paintings or books that you can churn out for free in the privacy of your own home. Films cost money, lots and lots of money what with cast, locations, crew, etc. It's hard to be an artist with other people's money.

Commercial viability has to be on your radar. The alternative is being some sort of 'artist' who makes lovely unmarketable films with no demo. And just like any famous artist, you'll find most of the fame comes.....after you're dead.

 

[Rubbersquare]

It's hard to be an artist with other people's money.

painful, but true.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Well Kubrick the thing is this, it's not ALL about money but it's MOSTLY about money....in the beginning. If you want to make the thought provokers as a living, they had better put butts in seats as you've stated because if they don't, you won't find money to make more thought provokers (assuming we are speaking of real film budgets here not 'no budget' movies).

These are films, not paintings or books that you can churn out for free in the privacy of your own home. Films cost money, lots and lots of money what with cast, locations, crew, etc. It's hard to be an artist with other people's money.

Commercial viability has to be on your radar. The alternative is being some sort of 'artist' who makes lovely unmarketable films with no demo.

This is 100% true IMO, and sadly a fact understood by far too few aspirants to artistic success, particularly in my old stomping ground...music. Commercial success is essential for actual survival as an artist...as opposed to a hobbyist.

 

[10s]

Commercial success is essential for actual survival

And Commercial only means there is a large number of people that happen to find value in the piece, -- nothing wrong with that!, it doesn't make it good or bad, it's just something that happens to resonate with a large number of people. The works of Monet are still commercial after a hundred years of viewing, see the calendars sold each year, as well as Pokey-Mon. They both attrack many people appreciating the value they bring. The art question is a whole other issue.

 

[Dvader]

Well Kubrick the thing is this, it's not ALL about money but it's MOSTLY about money....in the beginning. If you want to make the thought provokers as a living, they had better put butts in seats as you've stated because if they don't, you won't find money to make more thought provokers (assuming we are speaking of real film budgets here not 'no budget' movies).

These are films, not paintings or books that you can churn out for free in the privacy of your own home. Films cost money, lots and lots of money what with cast, locations, crew, etc. It's hard to be an artist with other people's money.

Commercial viability has to be on your radar. The alternative is being some sort of 'artist' who makes lovely unmarketable films with no demo. And just like any famous artist, you'll find most of the fame comes.....after you're dead.

Those points are very valid Adam. But I wouldn't forget that the cost to create cinema has substantially lowered in recent years, especially cameras. Grip gear is much more accessible, and many non-professionals are more willing to work and help out for the experience or pure enjoyment. Where there is a will there is a way, right? I believe that is something you advocate yourself.

I do also think there is a market out there for non genre films, its not mainstream or nearly as monetarily profitable, but there is one nonetheless, it just may be a more challenging demo to 'get on the map' with. Plus, with the culture's growing ability and interest in seeking out the things they like as individuals instead of only having a handful of commercial options to choose from, the demo will hopefully be growing.

Since I would want to make 'thought provokers' it's lucky for me that fame is not the end all. Most of the artists that I find to be great, while they may have been interested and longing for fame themselves, did not waver their path, or nowadays as we'd call it 'sell out' in order to achieve it.

I sometimes wonder what would change if our culture could become less concerned with financial success and fame. Would there be more people willing to participate and work on films outside of normal expectations, to be able to help another or dedicate themselves without the commercial payoff? And would this lead to a greater embrace of personal films or ones that do not follow a customary path? I don't want to judge on those who want money and fame, but I would favor a greater balance between those who do and those who don't.

 

[jls4]

Those points are very valid Adam. But I wouldn't forget that the cost to create cinema has substantially lowered in recent years, especially cameras. Grip gear is much more accessible, and many non-professionals are more willing to work and help out for the experience or pure enjoyment. Where there is a will there is a way, right? I believe that is something you advocate yourself.

The way Hollywood is acting, you'd think it's be the opposite. The average price per movie is increasing every year. But that weight is not on actual "production cost", but I'd think more of cost of everything else -actors, publicity, etc.

I do also think there is a market out there for non genre films, its not mainstream or nearly as monetarily profitable, but there is one nonetheless, it just may be a more challenging demo to 'get on the map' with. ...

Since I would want to make 'thought provokers' it's lucky for me that fame is not the end all. Most of the artists that I find to be great, while they may have been interested and longing for fame themselves, did not waver their path, or nowadays as we'd call it 'sell out' in order to achieve it.

Problem to me with art is that it's objective. I love "Waking Life" but most people I've run into hate it. But I didn't care for "Gladiator" although I'm a Ridley Scott fan. I think there is a fine line to what is true "art" and what is not. But I do believe that smart filmmakers (writer, directors, producers, actors, etc) will use strategy in order to propel their careers forward. The Coen Bros Are good about funny quirky movies, but they also do serious films as well. They kind of shuffle back and forth. Will Smith shuffles from Action Film to Drama to Sci-Fi then back again. He recognizes the need to be in all types of movies and to constantly show his range.

Far to often, in my limited opinion, Actors/Directors especially get caught up in trying to prove something to Hollywood or themselves and go down spiraling into dead-movie oblivion. They may win an Oscar and now they not only want more money, but they want more Oscar-worthy roles. Soon they've shifted into drama-h3ll and are slowly drifiting on a sea of lonliness. I think it's better to follow those like Steven Speilburg / Kate Blanchett who do all types of cinema and win awards here and there. It's like if you invested in stocks, would you only invest in one type, all auto or all tech? They have a diversified portfolio.

I sometimes wonder what would change if our culture could become less concerned with financial success and fame. Would there be more people willing to participate and work on films outside of normal expectations, to be able to help another or dedicate themselves without the commercial payoff? And would this lead to a greater embrace of personal films or ones that do not follow a customary path? I don't want to judge on those who want money and fame, but I would favor a greater balance between those who do and those who don't.

I doubt that people would seek a certain type of film based on capitalism. We flock towards certain types of movies because in a way those movies represent who we are. I only like really good dramas, not a big fan of horror (because I don't like the sight of Blood or people being hacked to pieces), I'm a big Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan because I love the concept of a better world or a different world, i.e. escapism.

Personally I don't want fame. Never wanted it, like Morgan Freeman said in "Hard Rain" - "I just want the money!" To me having money is having freedom to do whatever I want to do artistically. So if I want to do the next "Speed Racer", or LOTR, no one can stop me. But I think by being diversified in your approach, you'll be more profitable in the long run.

 

[Ted Spencer]

And Commercial only means there is a large number of people that happen to find value in the piece, -- nothing wrong with that!, it doesn't make it good or bad, it's just something that happens to resonate with a large number of people. The works of Monet are still commercial after a hundred years of viewing, see the calendars sold each year, as well as Pokey-Mon. They both attrack many people appreciating the value they bring. The art question is a whole other issue.

Right. In my comment "commercial" meant "the ability to make at least a decent living from doing it exclusively".

Almost every one of our most revered artists, in any field, *ever*, was/is highly recognized and well paid for their work in their own time (i.e. 'commercially successful'). Exceptions like Vincent Van Gogh are the stuff of legend, but are *extremely* rare. And even he, if he hadn't ended his own life at age 37, almost certainly would have lived to see himself become very, very wealthy.

The number of aspiring musical artists I know who actively shun commercial success, as though having a hit song is 'cheap' or something, is almost maddening. Of course, at least in my experience, all of those people ulitimately fail.

I think this is a lot less prevalent in filmmaking.

 

[jls4]

Almost every one of our most revered artists, in any field, *ever*, was/is highly recognized and well paid for their work in their own time (i.e. 'commercially successful'). Exceptions like Vincent Van Gogh are the stuff of legend, but are *extremely* rare.

I beg to differ on this one. Many writers, painters, etc were poor in their own time. Their works of art barely putting food on the table. But they were also in non-capitalistic societies.

I think this is a lot less prevalent in filmmaking.

Filmmaking by it's very nature is difficult to do constantly while being a failure. Movies even inexpensive ones are expensive when it comes to almost every other art form.

Painting: Canvas, Paints, Brushes (maybe $100 per image)
Singing: microphone, Computer, Eggcrates or Blankets, Software (Once 10 songs, probably less than $250 a song)
Movies: minimum $10K for one (that is if you are renting equipment OR you purchaased equipment at one time or another.)

Plus the time involved. Paining 1 to 7 days maybe unless your Painting the Sistine Chapel. Singing 1 to 10 days, Movies 10+ days.

Also while, one good successful film may push investors to invest in you blindly for 2 maybe even 3 or 4 movies, but soon it will catch up with you. You can't be succesful without movies that don't sell, unless your funding comes from another source. Say you're a professor at a college and you make your living from that and the college buys the equipment for your movies.

 

[ChipG]

Anything here new?

Adam? We are waiting

Did you sing a hush contract?

 

[taormina]

Well yes and no.

Yesterday evening by consensus I rejected the latest theatrical deal we were offered. In talks with my investor and my entertainment attorney, we decided not to move forward with the theatrical contract we had.

I had a deal for a platform release for Corrado. It was one print, 5 theaters, 5 cities, kind of a road show. It was about the smallest platform release I could've done, but it could be grown if we wanted it too.

We had to front the p&a money totaling $65,000, which we were initially OK with. The distributor was supposed to use this money to create a series of TV commercials targeted within a 3-5 mile radius of the theater we would play in. These commercials would play 1000-1500 times within that week, saturating the area around that theater and making it feel almost like a studio release to those who lived there.


At that point, we would keep 100% of the gross until the 65K was repaid, and then after that we would split the proceeds 50/50 with the distributor.

The theater was free of charge as far as fees goes, but takes 50% of all box office from the get go.

This distributor had a pretty good track record of actually doing this, so I know it works.

Our attorney, who has 25 years in the business, stated that it was pointless for us to pay the 65K out of our own pocket for something we could effectively do ourselves. He felt that either the distributor should've fronted the p&a or we should but not involve him since the mechanics of such a small campaign aren't rocket science and could be done by us directly by doing a little bit of homework.

Only two reasons to do a theatrical according to him:
1. Find a bigger distributor after doing well in platform to take the film wider
2. Boost the ancillary sales (DVD, etc).

There are actually a few more plusses but those are the ones from an investor's point of view.

The good news is I'm talking to a couple other larger distributors about a theatrical release and I have the funds allocated should I decide that we will do our own platform release (not four walling, there is a difference). My investor at this point is pretty much committed to theatrical so we'll see what comes up.

 

[GaryinCalifornia]

Adam,

I know a film out is best... but have you thought about playing it off a HDCAM or even DVD...

But again the last film we showed just for buyers was at the WGA... so not sure if everyone has an HDCAM deck... actually now that I think about it I think we provided the deck... old age is setting in...

 

[taormina]

Adam,

I know a film out is best... but have you thought about playing it off a HDCAM or even DVD...

But again the last film we showed just for buyers was at the WGA... so not sure if everyone has an HDCAM deck... actually now that I think about it I think we provided the deck... old age is setting in...

Actually the plan was to digitally project off a D5 or HDCAM. No prints in that case.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Well yes and no.

Yesterday evening by consensus I rejected the latest theatrical deal we were offered. In talks with my investor and my entertainment attorney, we decided not to move forward with the theatrical contract we had.

I had a deal for a platform release for Corrado. It was one print, 5 theaters, 5 cities, kind of a road show. It was about the smallest platform release I could've done, but it could be grown if we wanted it too.

We had to front the p&a money totaling $65,000, which we were initially OK with. The distributor was supposed to use this money to create a series of TV commercials targeted within a 3-5 mile radius of the theater we would play in. These commercials would play 1000-1500 times within that week, saturating the area around that theater and making it feel almost like a studio release to those who lived there.


At that point, we would keep 100% of the gross until the 65K was repaid, and then after that we would split the proceeds 50/50 with the distributor.

The theater was free of charge as far as fees goes, but takes 50% of all box office from the get go.

This distributor had a pretty good track record of actually doing this, so I know it works.

Our attorney, who has 25 years in the business, stated that it was pointless for us to pay the 65K out of our own pocket for something we could effectively do ourselves. He felt that either the distributor should've fronted the p&a or we should but not involve him since the mechanics of such a small campaign aren't rocket science and could be done by us directly by doing a little bit of homework.

Only two reasons to do a theatrical according to him:
1. Find a bigger distributor after doing well in platform to take the film wider
2. Boost the ancillary sales (DVD, etc).

There are actually a few more plusses but those are the ones from an investor's point of view.

The good news is I'm talking to a couple other larger distributors about a theatrical release and I have the funds allocated should I decide that we will do our own platform release (not four walling, there is a difference). My investor at this point is pretty much committed to theatrical so we'll see what comes up.

Very interesting Adam. So if you don't wind up getting a deal that you like better than this one, are you going to self distribute theatrically as per your attorney's information? Hold out? or go straight to video?

 

[filmman]

If it's one theater and you're only doing digital, why not four-wall? You can advertise in one town, go on a cable show, advertise on radio, hire a PR guy and go on a local TV show, but mainly run newspaper ads for two weeks starting with a single column add and increasing the size until you get to a full page add. In a small town, a full page ad won't cost that much. You have the budget; why not do a four-wall?

I'm only suggesting this; I haven't researched your movie and the demographics for it.

 

[taormina]

Very interesting Adam. So if you don't wind up getting a deal that you like better than this one, are you going to self distribute theatrically as per your attorney's information? Hold out? or go straight to video?

Not sure yet. Theatrical was not ever in the plan, not in my wildest dreams. Now that I was offered it, it seems like a good idea. The problem is that there MUST be an order to distribution or you screw your chain down the line. You MUST do theatrical before DVD, DVD before VOD, etc. Etc.

So until I decide on what to do about theatrical, everything must wait. I am leaning towards self distribution theatrically so far if the other two deals don't work out.

 

[taormina]

If it's one theater and you're only doing digital, why not four-wall? You can advertise in one town, go on a cable show, advertise on radio, hire a PR guy and go on a local TV show, but mainly run newspaper ads for two weeks starting with a single column add and increasing the size until you get to a full page add. In a small town, a full page ad won't cost that much. You have the budget; why not do a four-wall?

I'm only suggesting this; I haven't researched your movie and the demographics for it.

Pretty familiar with the way to do this. I actually like the other company's "commercial blitzkrieg" strategy.

Since I have the budget, I don't need to four wall. I can go cut a deal with a theater. They will show the film for free, take half the gross, and run it until it does poorly. IF you can prove you will advertise the film, they'll do it.