Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?

[lawriejaffa]

A lot of movies sale based on this one thought. LOL.

Yah back in their day - try making an early Roger Corman movie now but without his talent for production (and choice talent!) Audiences are more sophisticated in every way.

Even those what we might consider 'exploitation' pics that were the most succesful invariably were because they had merit in them that made them transcend their typical peers.

So regarding your statement - id say 'A lot of movies are made based on this thought' - but sale? *shakes head* not unless your producing porn... and if your producing genre with a rush to make a quick buck guess what.... a million others are. How many with their genre pics take time to make good stories - good characters - ie some artistic merit. (I'm sure most try actually) but only a few i guess manage it, its no coincidence they end up being the best.

The point is to fulfil genre anticipation you could say of an eager fan of that genre, then hit him with something on top - an innovative icing on the cake that makes him or her go holy **** - who directed this? I must see more!

That is the kind of risk an indy can take since he has nothing really to lose - to make a slight autuer element (slight very slight!) within a primarily commercial genre film.

But again please oh please let us not underestimate the audience and think if we produce tripe by the numbers that we will make a quick sale - i just done believe it. Studios spend millions to make tripe superficially amazing - to convince audiences their soulless poo is great.) You don't have the money to rely on superficiality.

 

[Nathyn]

LOL, you don't know the American audience. Seriously there are still companies that make films based solely on the attractiveness (and willingness to get naked/do faux sex scenes for cheap) of the chicks. The viewers buy these with the knowledge the woman/women will be naked in the film. The films don't even have to be of quality because quality isn't what that audience seeks. In fact nudity is considered one of the things that will help a movie sell. Like when you watch an action movie and a sex scene breaks out. The scene is so blatantly unneeded it's annoying, but it helped to sale the film.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

LOL, you don't know the American audience.

Thats a bit of an ignorant statement to make really because no offense, but how exactly are you - Mr $5k a picture gonna qualify yourselve as someone who would know otherwise? We, me, you, basically know bugger all - unless you have a magic ball...

Artistic merit is like all merit - if its meritous its better and of course it can vary on the subjective and context of a film. Lets take an extreme example, pornography - and blether about its evolution. If it was just naked ladies then why develop different strands of porn - why make some better at reflecting the hidden desires of certain pshyches and fetishes. The development of Gonzo shooting styles for realism or heightened erotic cinema - and even its partial convergence in mainstream all occured as a result of honed ideas. Ideas of which have to compete in probably the most competitive film marketplace imaginable.

I can see a woman or guy of any race and any age participating in just about any sex act imaginable. Just naked ladies - you wouldn't make much in porn!

An extreme example but the same applies to genre pics - which whenever i hear some guy spout oh its simple it just needs A, B and C and some moron will buy it i just cringe.

So why not reflect on your own statement - you say i don't obviously understand the American audience because i don't aknowledge your view that sole attractiveness (superficiality) can sell films. My point is that a film to be succesful needs more than that - even to make money against other superficial intended films it needs something extra.

Good Ideas.

If you think the tastes of any audience are simple then you are operating in a veil of ignorance - the most succesful filmmakers (of even pornography) have been those with the best ideas, and guess what that requires artistic merit to translate them if they are to be implemented on the screen.

----

Then there is the self evident point which you seem to be missing a little here. It's not worth it for a filmmaker working with a micro budget to pull in every favour required to make a feature with nothing, all the sweat blood and tears just to make a pure exploitation pic. If they have dismissed the intelligence of their intended audience from the start then they are screwed full stop.

So i come again to the point that it is those directors who have the best ideas and implement them with artistic merit - be it porn to a religious film that will make those movies that for an indy stand a real chance of success.

 

[taormina]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; No one wants to make $5K, $50K, or even $500K movies forever.

They are just so hard on you and your crew. Even a film like Corrado, where everyone was paid, we had people working at far less than their normal rates. We cut corners everywhere, and I mean everywhere from cheaper food to deleting scenes to cheaper locations.

The film turned out great, but how much better would it have been with a real budget which automatically bestows creative freedom on a project!

What does that have to do with the above posts?

You have to constantly reinvent yourself in each subsequent film and attempt to raise the bar for the next one so you can dig up more budget money on your next film.

You can get stuck in a rut of making low budget genre pics, slasher porn, or cheesy action flicks with "celebrities" so far down the chain that they are only known for being in direct to dvd crap.

Some people like this, even derive a living from it, but I personally don't see it as a route to a successful career.

I put my money where my mouth is. Instead of doing another action flick, I'm doing something much higher brow for my next film, but still retaining enough action to make it commerically viable. And Corrado wasn't your run of the mill dvd crap either, yet I still see a need to up my game.

 

[Jim2000]

When I first started working as an editor in Hollywood, I worked for some low budget producers who used to talk fondly of the golden age of the American Film Market in the 80's. When VHS first caught on, the big studios were slow to put all of their catalogues out on VHS, and so all of the low budget people stepped in to fill the demand for VHS product.

Producers could go to AFM with just a bunch of movie titles and posters and fund a whole slate of films before a frame of film had been shot, or a word of script had been written. Eventually, the shelves of the video stores were full and having a poster with a hot chick in a bikini holding a gun was no longer a guaranteed seller.

Now, it's 2009, and there are more films out there than ever. By most accounts, the last AFM was a total bust. If you want to be successful now, then you have to bring more to the table than just the standard exploitive elements of nudity and action.

Thanks to the digital revolution, you can make films for cheaper than ever, but because of this, there's more competition than there has ever been. As a result, I don't think making micro-budgeted action films is a very good career plan unless you're able to offer something new.

The micro budget films that will be successful and be able to compete with the studio films are the ones with the great ideas, the ones that take risks. There is a freedom in having almost no money - it means that you have almost nothing to loose. Your $5000 movie will never have a better explosion than a Michael Bay film, but that doesn't mean it can't have better ideas.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Hey Jim my thoughts exactly, nicely summed up.

 

[Chris Santucci]

The micro budget films that will be successful and be able to compete with the studio films are the ones with the great ideas, the ones that take risks. There is a freedom in having almost no money - it means that you have almost nothing to loose. Your $5000 movie will never have a better explosion than a Michael Bay film, but that doesn't mean it can't have better ideas.

Exactly. Why try to compete with studio films with an ultra low budget film that exploits the same old ****? There's a wealth of human experience out there just waiting to be turned into compelling stories via film. If you can't hire Daniel Craig or Jason Statham, then why try and compete with Hollywood style action films with no-name actors and a miniscule budget? What's the point?

If you have a tiny budget, you're way better off telling a unique story that hasn't been told before. At the very least, you then have something original rather than just another "guys with guns" movie.

.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yeah well hopefully also you can tap into the market that does exist - albeit its a small market for that particular indpendent film. I mean i certainly wouldnt dismiss genre films either but of course genre fans are CRYING out for innovative and original stories for their beloved genre.

I went to the Dead by Dawn horror film festival, talked to Neil Marshall of Doomsday / Dog Soldiers etc, and others (Mathew Hope of The Vanguard) and of all the most popular films at the fest - it was the ones that stood out with fresh ides.

Note in that sense the horror fans at the festival gave big applauses to the micro budget US movie Five Eyes Across - over some others!

 

[Nathyn]

Thats a bit of an ignorant statement to make really because no offense, but how exactly are you - Mr $5k a picture gonna qualify yourselve as someone who would know otherwise? We, me, you, basically know bugger all - unless you have a magic ball...

I can see a woman or guy of any race and any age participating in just about any sex act imaginable. Just naked ladies - you wouldn't make much in porn!

Wow, dude, you take comments way too seriously. It was a joke on what sells here in The States. I do know what sales and I see what people watch. I know for a fact there are companies who make money off of small but devoted niche markets and they do very well. Cheesy softcore girlie films is one of those markets. Again going back to the "art is subjective". I've seen one of these before - would like to have my ninety minutes back.

No story, no real plot, the vampires didn't do anything. It was crap. But it was in the video store and on cable the company that made is making money. Since they're still in business I assume they must be selling. I could be wrong. Maybe the owner is slinging rock on the side but I somehow doubt it. And you'd be suprized by how many films have "upped their value" with a single breast shot.

As for the Mr. 5k thing, I was simply telling people a way to sale their films if they're interested. That's how it's done. You're making a lot of statements but I'm wiling to bet you haven't done the research and if any one here is talking in ignorance it's you.

So why not reflect on your own statement - you say i don't obviously understand the American audience because i don't aknowledge your view that sole attractiveness (superficiality) can sell films. My point is that a film to be succesful needs more than that - even to make money against other superficial intended films it needs something extra.

I guess it depends on what you consider success. Most films won't make it to theaters and a good DVD deal can keep food on the table while you turn out the next project. If you make it to the theater then great but don't turn down that DVD deal if it's paying good money.

Good Ideas

For a lot of producers good ideas = Naked Breast. You ever hear of "The Asylum"? known for making Hollywood knock offs. What about Brain Damage Films? What about JR Bookwalter? And a lot of smaller distributors make a lot of money from not so good movies with not so good ideas. Go figure. You may not like it but people with less lofty goals are doing pretty well in this industry just making films they like (or sometimes don't like but they get paid). Many of them don't have so great of ideas. They were just made.

If you think the tastes of any audience are simple then you are operating in a veil of ignorance - the most succesful filmmakers (of even pornography) have been those with the best ideas, and guess what that requires artistic merit to translate them if they are to be implemented on the screen.

Or the most amount of naked chicks in a film.

Then there is the self evident point which you seem to be missing a little here. It's not worth it for a filmmaker working with a micro budget to pull in every favour required to make a feature with nothing, all the sweat blood and tears just to make a pure exploitation pic. If they have dismissed the intelligence of their intended audience from the start then they are screwed full stop.

Not true. Look at the Pay Per View on your local cable station.

So i come again to the point that it is those directors who have the best ideas and implement them with artistic merit - be it porn to a religious film that will make those movies that for an indy stand a real chance of success.

Or it's the guy with "The Blair Witch Project" who knew a lot of people and just had really good marketing. The idea was no different than anything else. The "it's a documentary" concept was decent but could've been done better (says Mr. 5K).

I've said it before and I'll say it again; No one wants to make $5K, $50K, or even $500K movies forever.

Well said, although I could do some great stuff with $500k.

Yeah well hopefully also you can tap into the market that does exist - albeit its a small market for that particular indpendent film. I mean i certainly wouldnt dismiss genre films either but of course genre fans are CRYING out for innovative and original stories for their beloved genre.

Mine is innovative and kick ass, period!

The micro budget films that will be successful and be able to compete with the studio films are the ones with the great ideas, the ones that take risks. There is a freedom in having almost no money - it means that you have almost nothing to loose. Your $5000 movie will never have a better explosion than a Michael Bay film, but that doesn't mean it can't have better ideas.

This is true and I don't see any thing wrong with starting off in low budget films and moving upward. Already there's been some movement on this project based solely on the cast and genre. While we're not shooting a $5k movie we sure aren't shooting a 5 mil movie either. I know my audience. I'll admit I was at fault for not selling Wages but the fact is I know now even that could've sold, so how much would a better film with names (even if they're only fan favorites and fans do drive my kind of film) sale.

As for selling microbudget films, there's no shame in that if it's what you want to do. I'm making martial arts action films. That's what I want to do. Each one gets better and better so why should I say, let me stop because I don't have a million bucks to compete with Hollywood. No one really does what I do because no one really knows how. Simple as that. So I have a niche market no one else can touch. If I'm right about it then great, if I'm wrong about it someone will still take the film off my hands. Martial arts fans will love the film and so will others and I'm not afraid to follow my dream. It's easy to say I don't have so I won't do. I sat idle since 2007 and I really didn't have to. Screw that. I'm going for mine. You do what you do.

-Nate

 

[filmman]

I had to really catch up on this thread. I'd stopped following it after the first day or two, then suddenly here it is in full swing. LOL ... a good one -- much info.

On the one hand I don't agree with anything being said here, but on the other hand I agree with everything.LOL

What I mean is that there is a dilemma for the indie filmmaker in today's climate, and I'm not talking economy. It's very easy to jump into projects what with all the digital equipment available these days. So one has to be really careful, otherwise another year blows by and nothing ...

The biggest problem is releasing movies. Distributors don't pay upfront money anymore it seems.

Festivals? Well, it's like selling your film for nothing just so it get to be seen. Once a movie has played in ten festivals, who's going to buy it as a DVD? I think few people will, because the audience for that type of movie has seen it. (Find agents, distributors? But they don't pay upfront, so there ...)

But back to the topic of the thread ... small distributors who pay peanuts for a select few movies and make a killing in the foreign/DVD markets.

I'd rather watch the movie myself than get ripped off. I hate being ripped off. And I don't want to be rejected by festivals where some kid takes my money order out of the envelope and tosses my DVD into the trash.

I'll work the Internet as long as I have to. When I have the money I'll return to the foreign market where I know how to sell and who to sell to.

As far as this thread is concerned I have to respect Nate's point of view because he's the only one I know who put his movie online to be watched by all. I saw Wages of Sin in its entirety. That says something about Nate as a filmmaker. His $800 movie is out there!

The lesson for me -- even though I'm a veteran filmmaker -- is that whatever movie I'm going to make, it has to be something I believe in. It could be any movie, any genre, budget or no budget, name actors or unknowns -- but it has to be something I'm willing to put another year of my life into.

I really appreciate all the passionate comments, because as we start a new year, we're all trying to commit ourselves to make certain movies and this thread is important to review some of the major issues that concern us all: relevance, budget, audience -- just what we're trying to achieve ... what are we all about as filmmakers -- what makes us tick?

Each one of us has to answer these questions to himself or herself.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Wow, dude, you take comments way too seriously.

I'm British so don't worry - what might have sounded like anger to the colloquial tongue of an American, was actually just dry British wit and cold l'amour. Try reading my post again with a friendlier voice inside your head

Okay, to cut to the point, i just think your being simplistic and naive in the statements you make. I'm calling a spade a spade Lets look why....

Again going back to the "art is subjective". I've seen one of these before - would like to have my ninety minutes back.

Oh well guess thats any drive for artistic merit gone then...

As for the Mr. 5k thing, I was simply telling people a way to sale their films if they're interested. That's how it's done.

Yeah 'that's how its done' - how could you possibly know? Why in the world would you pretend to even remotely know?

about JR Bookwalter? And a lot of smaller distributors make a lot of money from not so good movies with not so good ideas. Go figure.

Yeah... distributers might - but do you understand the relationship those producers have with the type of production companies that churn them out? They pick and choose such films - and their margins may not be very impressive for doing so. Even of those films they can still pick and choose due to the sheer volume of content produced.

Not true. Look at the Pay Per View on your local cable station.

Maybe you should...

So to summarise you are coming across as a guy who is so certain as to the 'way it is' as to sound dellusional - especially coming from a regular joe with not two coins to scrape together!

I applaud your drive to make a film - and though i must sound like an evil man im not saying the 'industry works like this or that' because its just pointless to make any 'certain' predictions.

I love action films and martial arts films too, but look even within those genres whose lowbudget films became the most succesful - they were the best artistic products with the best ideas. That doesn't mean arty farty, but those of the best artistic merit. Films like those by John Woo in his ol' Hong Kong Days, and of that genre who can't say that Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan were artists onto themselves.

 

[jls4]

That fact you referenced Bowfinger is quite awesome.

LOL - I love that movie. That embodies everything that is indiependent!

Okay, so you mainly watch A films: Bruce Campbell is in EVERY Spider-Man film. One of the pleasures of Spider-Man is waiting for the Bruce Campbell Cameo. He's the ring announcer in 1, the theater doorman in 2, and the Maitre'd in part 3.

I know who he is now. I definately remember the doorman scenes.

Missing out on a ton. You can never forsake the crossover effect: Video Games, comics, action films, super-hero/sci-fi us geeks move a lot of money and have made many people famous. Look at Raimi's IMDB and you may also be shocked at how far he's come from a small film that got major love from a big audience. Do a good geek movie you will be loved by us forever, especially if you're a babe.

Here's the thing, I'm not so against B-films that I've never seen my share, in fact I rented DOA: Dead or Alive that's easily B or C depending on your opinion. So I've seen a few. Just not many. Unfortunately in my experience, i fI watch 50 B/C films I'll find maybe 2 or 3 that I like. If I watch 50 of what I would consider indie films, I'll find maybe 5 to 10 that I like. If I watch 50 A films I'll find maybe 10 to 15 that I like. I'm just picky - most movies just don't move me. When they are good then I'm sure excited, but when they do the same thing over and over with little creativity - especially many B/C-films that may have $300K to 3 million, I'm esepcially hard on them.

DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND STAY AWAY FROM THESE! Low budget urban films are extremely BAD (And maybe even bad for you). My films usually get grouped into the "urban" category but at least I can tell a story that doesn't involve the F word every ten seconds. The distributors put them out to get the money but they have destroyed the market and are that much worse than your average low budget film.

Unfortunately I find myself not even renting things from certain distributors. But I still check them out every blue moon. I figure I always need to know what's "for sale"

You ever heard of a film called Drive? Most people I know have never said "The lighting was off in that shot." They mostly say "Daaaamn! When is Mark Dacascos going to get his shot!"

Of course, Drive is a calssic. But that's what I'm saying. Drive is beyond the average B-film. It's about 3 steps away from an A film. It's like Blind Fury - showed up in the B-film world but was damn near A level.

What I'm saying as filmmakers, you owe it to yourself to study a market, but shoot for the stars. If I put out a B, C, D film, then it was always my aim to make it as close to an A as possible based on my budget and resorces. When we finsihed my second film - the one that sold to Mav. I only got 2 reviews - the first was was 90% bad, the second one said in essence this guys (me) film is much better than most of the movies I've seen of this genre with this distributor, I'd like to see what he does next. So my point is, I was shooting for a better story, for better quality. I just didn't know better. I don't want to get caught up with looking just to make a quick buck, instead I want the only difference in my movies vs the ones in the theater to be simply, I couldn't afford Will Smith or Tom Cruise.

Not if you got a green scene, they can be in that film a lot. LOL.

actually I used green screen throughout my 3rd movie and I'm getting better with it. much better. In the next movie I plan on using it at least twice as much. It helps to put those actors where I want and it's quick. Something else I've learned, is to shoot with my "celebs" and maybe just get the shots with them in it and come back later with more time and finish up with my main actors - again quicker, get'er done! :beer:

 

[jls4]

Its actually uber hard work to make a micro budget film watcheable, never mind convincing an audience that its of a uber production value, or that it features stars who only make cameos - or of treating audiences like their stupid.
...
I should also think a BIG DOSE of humility if required here especially with the 'i checked out the competition and it sucked' type attitude. Sure that helps to encourage you that yours will be the microbudget exception to mediocrity but don't dellude yourselves - its gonna be hard.

I believe one should always watch and learn. I can learn more from a person's failures sometimes than their successes, especially if the person is willing to point them out. Studying bad films to understand what a bad film looks like, sounds like, etc can help you to understand what you don't want your movie to be like. It also lets you know what is selling and what the baseline market is.

However, since we're just really meeting lawriejaffa, we don't have much history yet. so far, I've done 2 African-American comedies and 1 Mixed race Drama with a Black lead. The mixed race film has been distributed, but I noticed a huge void in black cinema esepcially in action/comedy. there are lots of "urban" or dare I say it "ghetto" comedies, but not many African-American Middle-Class comedies - and the few that are out there aren't that good. It's so bad that one of the main Black Distributors said they would not even look at a movie if it didn't have a celebrity because the avg movie that got sent in to them was so bad. So I need to understand what mistakes I MUST avoid, even on this lowest of levels. It's not so much arrogance, it's more of understanding. If I were playing say American Football and I didn't check out my competition before the game, you'd think it's crazy. Well other filmmakers are your competiton. You need to chck out their "game".

If your so poor and have NOTHING to lose, and i honestly mean NOTHING - then why the hell (and i take you to court on this JLS with your emulation comment hehe) Then why oh why try to emulate anything so commercial that it's base is already covered by studio pump outs - that are better funded than what you can do.

In fact Adam's film isn't a sell out - (even though he's characterised it as overtly commercial) but the jist here seems to be about emulating big boys with big films.

Not good films with big ideas...

I don't remember my comment LOL You have to learn the quote button. But I will say I've got Plenty to LOOSE - mainly my Time and Energy which I can never get back. I don't look at Adam or Nate or any of us as sell outs. Heck I don't consider myself a sell out. My personal goals are to make commercial films - and hopefully move to A-list films. I don't watch many artsy-fartsy films myself. I like to see stuff blow up! :beer:

 

[lawriejaffa]

But I will say I've got Plenty to LOOSE - mainly my Time and Energy which I can never get back.

Well... if you think seeking to develop artistic merit in your script is too risky for your 'time' - wow can't wait to watch your movies with that attitude I know you dont quite mean it like that im sure.

I don't see Adam as a sell out whatsoever, i don't believe there is 'any' easy sell outs. I mean you read my examples with porn right - its all competitive, its all tough. What i deride are folks that speak as if they know it all as a matter of fact - the way to make a dumb easy to profit film. How many times have we heard that before...
We talk about making commercial films of course as if its an easy route - its an easier route, but its not a conditional one based on selling out or not caring about artistic merit. People are accustomed to the very best genre films with good ideas - and those without them are slated.

Any of the crap films you think make a profit... given that about 9 out of 10 do not make a profit.... just where do you think anyones cynical not bothered if its crap - kinda movie will fit in? If its good - then it will have some kind of merit - if its entertaining then that relies on a script? or good characters or performances thats all artistic merit you know!!! If it has nothing it will be crap, and it won't magically make a profit without it - even the most commercial films that i might not like have if there succesful artistic merit in some area - even if its an area i don't appreciate. Take Michael Bay, i dont like his movies but by god the man does have artistic vision - its bombastic, its over the top but he is an artist of a different sort to the traditional arts establishment. It doesnt mean he isnt an artist - an entertainer (a stand comic) is practicing the art of comedy. That too is art...

You guys are getting your pants in a twist thinking art is this kind of cultural elite kinda thang that excludes profit making. Im saying its subjective and ESSENTIAL to any films success in a crowded market place. And no offence JLS but you yourself say your not too experienced in this - and obvisously 5k a picture Nate isn't either.

I'm primarily a producer who works with feature companies atm offering post FX solutions but by god we talk a lot, and the idea of the quick buck exploitation film is a bygone era!

Arty farty films are one thing... (in fact there the thing that contributes to film culture and everything...) That doesnt mean i want to make an 'art film per say.' But it is artistic merit - that is the term we would use to compare scripts that are better, films that are better.

A kung fu film is better than another not because it was a better sell out - because its director was more cynical... Artistic merit even exists in corporate land - those companies with the most interesting and exciting product do better... of course they have to be reliable etc, but its those elements that let any creative work transcend.

What i think is bizarre is this idea that there is an exception to a film not having to require any artistic merit and that its an easy way to make a buck. I mean honestly anyone beliving that should grow up.

 

[jls4]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; No one wants to make $5K, $50K, or even $500K movies forever.

They are just so hard on you and your crew. Even a film like Corrado, where everyone was paid, we had people working at far less than their normal rates. We cut corners everywhere, and I mean everywhere from cheaper food to deleting scenes to cheaper locations.

The film turned out great, but how much better would it have been with a real budget which automatically bestows creative freedom on a project!

What does that have to do with the above posts?

You have to constantly reinvent yourself in each subsequent film and attempt to raise the bar for the next one so you can dig up more budget money on your next film.

You can get stuck in a rut of making low budget genre pics, slasher porn, or cheesy action flicks with "celebrities" so far down the chain that they are only known for being in direct to dvd crap.

Some people like this, even derive a living from it, but I personally don't see it as a route to a successful career.

I put my money where my mouth is. Instead of doing another action flick, I'm doing something much higher brow for my next film, but still retaining enough action to make it commerically viable. And Corrado wasn't your run of the mill dvd crap either, yet I still see a need to up my game.

Dang-it man, this is why we love you. statements just like this! I'm so sick of making under $25K movies until it's pathetic, and even though I want to raise $240K for my next feature I already see in the budget huge holes that I simply can't fill. Ahhhhh That's the indie life I guess.

 

[jls4]

Well... if you think seeking to develop artistic merit in your script is too risky for your 'time' - wow can't wait to watch your movies with that attitude I know you dont quite mean it like that im sure.

WOW somebody woke up on the wrong side of "Big Ben" this morning! LOL just kidding. No I agree with you. I was saying I didn't understand your original statement, but I was trying to say I don't make movies to waste time. I make movies to make intellegent points, to make money and to entertain. So we're saying the same thing, but I think we got off track - or at least I didn't know what you were asking for a moment.

I don't see Adam as a sell out, i don't believe there is 'any' easy sell outs. I mean you read my examples with porn right - its all competitive, its all tough. What i deride are folks that speak as if they know it all as a matter of fact - the way to make a dumb easy to profit film. How many times have we heard that before...

I'm saying the same thing - I don't see him as a sell out - why would I? He's making the type of film he wants to make. That's far from a sell out.

Arty farty films are one thing... (in fact there the thing that contributes to film culture and everything...) That doesnt mean i want to make an 'art film per say.' But it is artistic merit - that is the term we would use to compare scripts that are better, films that are better.

I'm not against artsy films, but just not at this level. To be honest I think it's much harder to sell an art film at say a $200K and under budget than one at 2 million. My thing is to keep my art-culture pieces to myself until I have enough money to market them properly.

What i think is bizarre is this idea that there is an exception to a film not having to require any artistic merit and that its an easy way to make a buck. I mean honestly anyone beliving that should grow up.

I don't think I or anyone is saying that. Being on their board we ALL want to do what we consider to be ART. We're not trying to do p0rn are we? The artsy-fartsy that I mention is something that's more on the edge. While I consider the Matrix or John Woo's earler work Art, the Average American wouldn't descibe it that way. So when we "Americans" say art or artsy we use it as a term to descibe a certain type of movie - like say a "Benjamin Button" we generally don't use it to describe "Handcock". I think you're confusing the way we use the english language. I have a good friend now in London who I speak with often, and we sometimes have to stop and think about how we both are using the "same words" and what they mean for both of us. :dankk2:

 

[lawriejaffa]

So long as you don't wake up beside 'Big Ben' your okay!

Yep well when im talking about artistic merit remember its not the same as talking about 'an art film' - every film that wants to be succesful needs artistic merit - but that doesnt mean it has to be an art film if that makes sense. The most meritous porn will beat boring porn right - but we wouldnt describe any type of porn as an art film would we (unless its french with subtitles hehe.)

Look indies are always crapping their pants about art and genre, - oh it must be genre so i make a $ or it must be art or im a sell out!?! Its quite silly as its not one or the other.

The best genre films will have artistic merit. The point is for an indy - that a studio might not want to take a chance on something a little crazy but for you - it will make you distinct. Take that part of yourself and unashamedly inject it into your story.

Genre films that did well because of their artistic merit (AND NOT BECAUSE OF ARTY FARTY pretentions...)

Brother
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qzUMsRctXb4&feature=related

Or horror - Head Trauma
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Acubd4WUGoA

or The Vanguard (got lionsgate deal)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uKkTiENBBv0

So i mean come on - where do we have easy to pump out commercial crap made by indies that are just raking it in? If it is i bet i can find an obvious artistic merit within that product somewhere.

So when we "Americans" say art or artsy we use it as a term to descibe a certain type of movie - like say a "Benjamin Button" we generally don't use it to describe "Handcock".

True, but your not the average american, your an american filmmaker yes? So how we percieve art is not as a consumer but as a producer - and the distinction we make between a product that appears artistic and doesnt is not that one is arty and one isnt. Its realising where in lies the artistic merit that we wish to replicate in our own films.

I think we are crossing lines a little though in our definition of arts however there is a perception i think it exists that something has to be anti-art to be cool.

Again going back to the "art is subjective". I've seen one of these before - would like to have my ninety minutes back.

I mean my god, you'd expect a comment like that from some teen trolling on imdb not a film director who should be absorbing the sources of the visual language/film culture he seeks to utilise. This is the point - if you think you just dont need artistic merit in a film to make it succesful even a genre pic.

 

[jls4]

Look indies are always crapping their pants about art and genre, - oh it must be genre so i make a $ or it must be art or im a sell out!?! Its quite silly as its not one or the other.

I don' t think either is a sell out. I feel that each has their time and purpose. In the 24 Diary I encourage filmmakers to stop thinking about more artistic moving dramas because of the sell factor at the micro budget level. to be honest, very few of us are like Adam, Justin or even Todd. Most of us art not in a position to either raise or come out of pocket with over $25K to make a feature.

Going back to the point of the thread and integrating it with my current statements. If one was to make the type of movie that Mav Ent likes, then they can sell to Mav and maybe not make a huge profit, but maybe enough to buy more equipment and give it a second go. The 24 Diary is simply a plan based on what I percieved was R. Rodriguez's original plan (if El Mariachi wasn't as well recieved)

Going genre now, can help you more to build up resources including people (actors/crew) who may respect you more after you've one 1 or 2 movies. But even if you go genre, another personal point, is to still try to give the movie an edge. Don't make it just bulletts, blood, and breasts. It still refects you and where you've come from. The whole "B Film" issue I brought up, reflected the fact that I don't understand the point of making bad movies, if you can help it. So always as a filmmaker do your absolute best when making a movie, even if it is a $10K feature.

The best genre films will have artistic merit. The point is for an indy - that a studio might not want to take a chance on something a little crazy but for you - it will make you distinct. Take that part of yourself and unashamedly inject it into your story.

Genre films that did well because of their artistic merit (AND NOT BECAUSE OF ARTY FARTY pretentions...)

My point exactly.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uKkTiENBBv0

So i mean come on - where do we have easy to pump out commercial crap made by indies that are just raking it in? If it is i bet i can find an obvious artistic merit within that product somewhere.

I will disagree that you must have artistic merit. not saying any decent filmmaker would want to make movies that way, but I've seen plenty of movies with little-to-no art at all, do very well. Art of War II was a perfect example of that. For every Indie-Artsy Filmmaker there is somebody who just wants to exploit movies and make a quick buck. I doubt most of those people come to DVXuser.

True, but your not the average american, your an american filmmaker yes? So how we percieve art is not as a consumer but as a producer - and the distinction we make between a product that appears artistic and doesnt is not that one is arty and one isnt. Its realising where in lies the artistic merit that we wish to replicate in our own films.

Very true, but we still "talk like" Americans even though we may truly feel differently. But I understand your point.

I mean my god, you'd expect a comment like that from some teen trolling on imdb not a film director who should be absorbing the sources of the visual language/film culture he seeks to utilise. This is the point - if you think you just dont need artistic merit in a film to make it succesful even a genre pic.

I don't think Nate meant it that way. He meant that he didn't have time to waste on really bad movies from filmmakers whose sole purpose was to sell a movie based on T&A instead of substance.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yep well producing a film that identifies with a genre audience is what most do - and then comes the hard part making your film stand out in a genre field. What people forget about the most lucrative genres - like action or horror especially is that there are a dedicated fan base that imo they must reach by delivering something mainstream genre films don't.

Genre is not the magic wand to making profit - on the downside if you blunder into producing something to compete with mainstream versions of genre films (ie. those funded well beyond anything you could dream of) then game over.

Going genre is such a bizarre term though too isn't it. Its like dressing down, or wanting 'fast food'. I think in terms of attitude we have to remember that genre represents some fundamental expectations of a story that a drama might not necessarily afford to a discerning audience in the 'mood' for something. It doesn't mean crap stories... though some might think that crap stories are allowed and are still profitable. Lets reiterate that a profit does not mean profitable either - how many of the really terrible movies cited return a decent profit - i dont know the math, but again i think the best of the bunch will do and the others wont (or a reasonable profit to make it worth its while.)

For us indies we can deliver what mainstream cinema doesnt want - ie a smaller slice of the audience economic pie. The horror film that goes somewhere mainstream doesnt want to - be it psychological - be it darker you name it. Or the action film with an unashamedly grindehouse vibe with scenery chewing badasses - Sergio Leonne for example.

His spaghetti westerns are considered artistic works, many low budget japanese horror films would but their western peers to shame.

The Grudge - i remember seeing that as a made for tv movie sent to by a mate from Singapore! Way before it hit scenes here i was like wtf! Same with other relatively low budget films - Ring, Kairo, Cure, Dark Water.

I think its far more mature and profitable to percieve genre not as commercial, but as a gateway to a dedicated fanbase who might appreciate your story more if it delivers something that speaks to them maturely - that doesnt treat them like a market demographic.

So, take the filmmaker that decides 'okay im going genre, lets put out a black cast action flick with a minor celebrity to bang in the lead - then send it out to this pump em out straight to dvd distributer.'

If you don't love the genre your making for - then how are you going to have the energy and passion to produce a feature with a crap budget, huge stress and will take probably 9 months.

As for the distributer - they WILL ALWAYS MAKE MONEY - somehow even if they take your dvd and sell it as drink matts in a bar yeah!

Its a joke to think that selling a 5 k film and making a 10k gross is like a victory. If it took 9 months say, free volanteers, cost 5k and made you cry yourself to sleep hehe. Then its just not enough... you could make more working a regular job to fund say - the 10k film that the last films profits were to go too.

Mediocrity makes small profits (and that we consider mediocre that makes huge profits is not really mediocre despite our artistic tastes.)

Its a good discussion this - and i am indeed a strong believer in combining an artistic element within a recognised genre - that is to deliver the fans what they expect (what i would expect) and then give them something of myself - the autuer is definately the micro budget filmmakers friend.

I don't think Nate meant it that way. He meant that he didn't have time to waste on really bad movies from filmmakers whose sole purpose was to sell a movie based on T&A instead of substance.

Oops your quite right - misread that thought poor old Nate was slagging off films with merit - indeed i agree completely with him regarding films without any substance! Even Evil Dead has substance (its a classic!!) hehe

 

[jls4]

Genre is not the magic wand to making profit - on the downside if you blunder into producing something to compete with mainstream versions of genre films (ie. those funded well beyond anything you could dream of) then game over.

Its a joke to think that selling a 5 k film and making a 10k gross is like a victory. If it took 9 months say, free volanteers, cost 5k and made you cry yourself to sleep hehe. Then its just not enough... you could make more working a regular job to fund say - the 10k film that the last films profits were to go too.

Mediocrity makes small profits (and that we consider mediocre that makes huge profits is not really mediocre despite our artistic tastes.)

Its a good discussion this - and i am indeed a strong believer in combining an artistic element within a recognised genre - that is to deliver the fans what they expect (what i would expect) and then give them something of myself - the autuer is definately the micro budget filmmakers friend.

You are definately an interesting person and very welcome addition to the DVXuser family. I will say I agree with the "above and beyond" going artistic in making of genre films. This is the difference between someone who will make it and someone who won't. So I agree with you 100%.

As for the 9 months spent on a 5K / 10K / 30K movie is where I don't. For me, if I saved up all year - sure I'd have $10K - more actually - but most people don't make money like that. The average american makes less than $40K a year.

"The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102" - Wikapedia

If you take taxes, apartment/house, car, utilities, food, etc trust me not much is left over. So to say someone shouldn't invest $5K to try and turn it into $15K over the course of a year, doesn't make since.

And it's not just about the $5K / $15K / $30K it's also about the experience that one receives. Like Nate, my first feature was low $300, my next was $14.5K and my current is $28K. Each one I learned leaps and bounds more than I would have if I started on a $200K set. For one, I've learned each position, and what it means, and how it helps production. Personally I've learned how to master almost every crew position, which has yeilded me much better results than those with 5x as much money as I have.

There's no point in getting a budget of $200K and you don't know how to spend it, OR WORSE don't know what constitutes good work or how to ask your crew how to give you what you want.

And truly $5K is plenty of money in the right hands. Someone who truly knows what they are doing. I said before - (I don't know in this thread or not) "Facing the Giants" claims a $10K budget. I say "yeah right" because between the lines we know the guy had over 15 years movie experience, access to over $200K worth of equipment, lots of free locations and cast. The movie really cost $1 million even though it was only $10K out of pocket. It's not about direct money, it's about what the talent, locations, etc are worth plus the money.

My new $28K feature has better production quality that movies I've seen shot for over $150K. It may not have the celeb names, but it has great audio and very good lighting, cinematography and set design. The true money cost is relative based on experience and access. You gain these things through the smaller movies and you gain the trust of those around you.

But the small steps are sometimes needed when money is short. The way I see it is this: Worst case scenario I sell my feature to a company like Mav who may give me a little over what I spent. All of the new equipment is mine - I didn't rent I bought. So even though I'm starting over for my next feature - my exec producers get their money back, we have more equipment, and it'll be easier to raise more money since I delivered on the feature - maybe not what I wanted, but enough to say I know what I'm doing. Say this went on for 3 years, and say each movie took 9 months - In 3 years based on these facts and everything you're saying, someone could have over $120K in equipment with $120K in cash to finally get a named actor to star in the movie. So eventually, if you keep pushing, you'll get there. But if someone balks at smaller priced movies and dist deals - you stand still waiting for a perfect deal. If you can raise money like Adam or Justin, then you're good BUT if you can't you just keep working your day job and maybe after 5 years you've raised $60K for your first feature - which you have no experience on and trust me you will make mistakes. So now it takes twice as long to make the feature because you're waiting for money and you make twice the gamble. Also, if you're a true filmmaking you should have plenty of stories in you.