tieuellegacy
Active member
Damn that came out long once I saw it. I could've broken it up and caught up with most of you with 500 posts.
Corrado Part II
- Thread starter taormina
- Start date
tieuellegacy
Active member
Well put HDKilledFilm. Nice cover shot by the way.
prexdealer
Well-known member
First of all, I acknowledge you for your post. It seemed to come from a good place.
Yes, the goal is to sell, but from all that I have been learning, the film is sellable or not. FB and other social media is great for self distribution. And I could be totally wrong here and someone like Adam or Kholi (who seems to know a lot) could chime in. But for the commercial route - good it sells, bad no distributor will want it unless you give it away. For the DIY approach absolutely the social media stuff matters.
But if I was an investor, I wouldn't care about responses you got on your previous movie, I would care how much it cost, how much you got back and how long it took turn a profit.
Dvxuser is small community when compared to the population at large. And we all have a common interest, to some degree. It does not represent society.
HERE COMES THE RANT (well more like observations)
In my opinion, this is a societal issue of how we are as people. We live in an "all about me" society. It is encouraged. We are socialized to believe that love comes from external stimulus instead of having a strong core. Yes, there are exceptions and if you have a strong core, I applaud you (not you specifically the general world at large you).
We are a society of "let me tell you about myself" rather than letting us learn about you. People tell you they are confident, why the hell would you do that if you were? Society emphasizes that you need to be somebody, become something. And people drink the coolaid. Yes, it would be great if they gave back, but they are more concerned about pushing their agenda along. Or are fearful that someone will steal their great idea, not realizing that things are derivative. Avatar, in my opinion, stole from Dances with wolves. But a new generation will never see Dances, so they think Avatar is the greatest.
Here is a link to the rise in narcissism in college students. Should explain a lot http://suite101.com/article/the-increase-in-narcissism-in-college-students-a381694
RANT OFF
I understand that it would be nice if people spent money to support dvxuser films. That would be great. But I think it comes down to who is promoting the film. Because it would be more a bet on the person than on the product.
Be true to yourself and if supporting others aligns with your beliefs do it. But if it doesn't well it doesn't. Can't change people.
Eventually communities figure out who are takers and who are givers.
Some people on here could easily rally support in a heartbeat because they are known as solid people who give to others.
I am not trying to be mean here, just sharing observations.
Here's the thing though, Adam was able to leverage the fact that he had a film with a name actor and distribution and use that track record to land his next gig as writer/director. Nobody looked at Bad Ass/Corrado and thought "Well, we'd lend you the money if your last film woulda sold more DVD units. Sorry. Come back next year." Nobody that mattered cared about the reviews (which are typically always bad on straight to DVD films anyway). I rented Bad Ass on Netflix when it came out, moreso out of curiosity because I'd followed his progress since he began talking about it. Regardless of the sales or support, he landed his next gig because he now had some clout in the game...now even moreso, well at least more than most of us
It's also important to remember a majority of whatever money comes in for Bad Ass/Corrado is going to Shoreline. While people were still on this thread discussing their opinions, he actually was in preproduction for Tactical Force which I believe had a $3.5M budget.I can't remember if he said his investor lost money or they're just slowly gaining it back for Corrado/Bad Ass, but either way it didn't have an effect on his most recent film which his producer used pre-sales mostly to fund.
HDkilledFILM.
Burnin' down the House
Thanks!
prexdealer
Well-known member
If I recall correctly, the money was more like a personal loan and he was going to make his investors good regardless. I think in one post (not sure here or at FS) the movie had not yet. But I agree with your post he got his second movie under way while wrapping up Corrado. Maybe it was on his discussion about the million dollar blueprint (only at FS).
tieuellegacy
Active member
Thanks. I wasn't trying to bash anyone or change anyone by the comment. We're all observing. I wouldn't be opposed to getting someone to see one of the movies as long as the filmmaker breaks me of my .50 cents for the referral.
Indirectly, we're saying the same thing. You mentioned how quick the return could be and how much you get back. All of that ties to people actually seeing the film. If we don't see the film, returns will be very slow. You just put it in a more technical manner than I did.
I'm gonna check out that article.
Tieuel Legacy! in Motion
Indirectly, we're saying the same thing. You mentioned how quick the return could be and how much you get back. All of that ties to people actually seeing the film. If we don't see the film, returns will be very slow. You just put it in a more technical manner than I did.
I'm gonna check out that article.
Tieuel Legacy! in Motion
tieuellegacy
Active member
Filmboy77,
I understand the leverage as well. It's great that he had that push to do another film. That's what it's about.
How long do you think directors have before people actually look at their numbers? There are people in this site that will rattle off numbers from the top of their domes. There are people in the industry that do that plus tell you everyone else's share in the movie. Prexdealer just mentioned which movies he'd be more likely to fund. What is the return and how fast does it come? He's right. We would all have to ask ourselves that same question.
More people would be likely to place $200 mil on Transformers 4 or Bad Boys 3 than they would Freddy's Meets Jason Meets The Smurfs. Michael Bay (for example) will continue to get huge movies because of his track record. The number starts coming back to earth when people don't see the movies. As great as I think M. Night Shymylan is, the amount offered is coming down from what I can tell and from what I've read. Undoubtedly the economy would be a huge factor. But even through the touch economy people will find ways to put big money on big films.
After a while, the numbers do come up in conversation. Watching the SharkTank tv show is a good indicator of that. Investors are about numbers. I don't mean angel investors. I mean the money hungry sharks. They want to know, "What have you done lately?"
I understand the leverage as well. It's great that he had that push to do another film. That's what it's about.
How long do you think directors have before people actually look at their numbers? There are people in this site that will rattle off numbers from the top of their domes. There are people in the industry that do that plus tell you everyone else's share in the movie. Prexdealer just mentioned which movies he'd be more likely to fund. What is the return and how fast does it come? He's right. We would all have to ask ourselves that same question.
More people would be likely to place $200 mil on Transformers 4 or Bad Boys 3 than they would Freddy's Meets Jason Meets The Smurfs. Michael Bay (for example) will continue to get huge movies because of his track record. The number starts coming back to earth when people don't see the movies. As great as I think M. Night Shymylan is, the amount offered is coming down from what I can tell and from what I've read. Undoubtedly the economy would be a huge factor. But even through the touch economy people will find ways to put big money on big films.
After a while, the numbers do come up in conversation. Watching the SharkTank tv show is a good indicator of that. Investors are about numbers. I don't mean angel investors. I mean the money hungry sharks. They want to know, "What have you done lately?"
Yea I can't remember his exact words, but it was something like what you just said. On FS in that first or second interview when he talked about how that's the main reason why he doesn't prefer to use investor money in the first place anymore.
Yea absolutely numbers are a factor when you're talking about box office returns and theatrical releases like your examples (Transformers 4, Bad Boys 3, etc)...but there's tons of directors and producers cranking out these straight to DVD films on a regular basis (without using their own money) and making a good living from it. The flipside to that is most of those guys get stuck in DVD hell and the quality is lacking.
If you were trying to get money from those cats on Shark Tank who knows if they'd care about what numbers you did in the past. The climate is constantly changing in Hollywood. If you had bankable talent attached, a track record and a marketable script you probably wouldn't need them anyway. The money hungry sharks you mention would be investing in blockbusters, not small indie films. It's no secret that most films lose money.
I dunno, I can only speak form my own personal experience. Distributors I've spoken with about projects I'm trying to get off the ground have all been more concerned with who's starring in it, the script and what the quality of my last projects looked like. Nobody's ever brought up numbers (but then again, I'm talking straight to DVD not box office so maybe that's why).
Martay
Veteran
Lots of good discussion but I agree with your post.
I constantly have the urge to post "How many comments have you made on other people's posts?" on every one of the user films threads (well just a lot) that are about LOOK AT MY MOVIE...and then they come back and say "No feedback? What's up?" etc.
Hey, I do ask for folks to view things too.
However, I watch a lot of clips on the board and do give feedback periodically. Not on every post but on many. I just see the One Timers who only post their clip and wait for the "love" and it's an example of your rant.
Now...Go Watch STEP OFF from STARZ On Demand! or Beat Makers on HULU! DO IT NOW!!
-Martin
Last edited:
tieuellegacy
Active member
Filmboy77,
Remember my initial premise was that it is more of a shame that the support isn't there. If I convince someone to change their thoughts on it then so be it. My goal was to point it out because specific examples of DVXusers dodging these movies were on my mind.
I agree with you for the most part.
There's a difference in blockbuster (not the company) and straight to DVDs. Bottomline is that you have to get money in someway. Oftentimes you're dealing with investors that don't know the movie business. They're asking about stars because they can identify with faces. They also feel that they can see the big picture about getting their money back...and then some. Whereas a bank will ask you about projections and previous sales. That's on reason why most businesses don't get the loan. Investors don't invest to lose money in ANY market. Those are called GAMBLERS. Angel investors are also gamblers because they basically provide a grant without expectation. Once they want a return, they aren't angel investors anymore. I'm not saying that straight to DVD isn't profitable. In some cases it can be. But if you don't have the support, you won't have the profit. Bootleggers don't ignore indie products. They will make $5 off of each copy really fast.
Let's not ignore the fact that direct to DVD is a different business than it was 7 years ago. Studios began to take their current acquisition route as well. Remember there was a time when you could pitch to a DVD distro company prior to creating the film. If they liked the idea, they would provide $10k or $20k to film it. They lost money that way. So now they wait for you to create the product and buy it outright. What happens there? You then often have a product that you spent $30k on. They offer you $15k. If you're not in a small bidding war, you either have to take that loss of $15k or take the full loss of $30k and hope to get another offer. Ask 5 direct to DVDers that will give you the real scoop and they will tell you (if you've done direct to DVD, ask 5 others). Studios began to create these smaller "boutique" studios to do the same things. Lionsgate acquired loads of film like that. Many of the films you will never see unless you stumble upon them on Youtube like I did. They rent a hundred or so titles from there that I never even saw in Blockbuster. Now they compete with the "old 7 majors". They have the marketing power behind them. Then they shrink the backend returns so they keep over 90%. It sounds nice to get a backend but they typically keep you in the red. Most of these companies York Ent., Maverick, FilmMovement, iFilms, and others will work the same way.
Most people won't pitch Shark Tank for movies even though Mark Cuban is on there representing his film biz and others. But one of the big questions on Shark Tank is ALWAYS, "What are your sales?" Another is "What is your profit margin?" It always comes up unless they don't like your pitch from the beginning. That's probably why filmmakers aren't on there.
I understand. There are people that make some money off of direct to DVD. I'm not opposed to it at all especially if you set up your own distro. They don't typically do it by choice. Many, if not most, people land there because they didn't know how to break into the theater.
TLegacy
prexdealer
Well-known member
You sure do, I appreciate seeing your comments on other posts. I am not sure why one timers get mad when they don't get a reply, lol.
tieuellegacy
Active member
Going back to the very last thing that you said about figures. In some direct to DVD clauses, you'll notice that the company asks how much marketing money you want them to put into your project. It's bogus. They will put whatever amount they need into packaging your product that it takes to get a return. They give you $15k. All they need to is sell more than 600 units to come close to breaking even at $25 per DVD. That's why they don't have to focus on how much you spent on it or how many sales your last DVD created. Actually Blockbuster used to buy them at closer to $50 before the market changed to selling DVDs as soon as the rental stores get them. Now standard dvds typically sell for under $20 on their first Tuesday.
If you're a first time filmmaker, they know that you won't have prior sales so there's no need in them even asking you. The only way to figure out the acquisition is to look at the product itself and see what they can do to get you in stores. Again, many investors don't know how to do that.
Tidbit.
"Puncture" is a movie that was created here in Houston with Chris Evans starring (that's the guy from Captain America and Fantastic 4, right?). The movie is slow but solid in my opinion. Shot nicely. Story is solid. First time direction by 2 brothers out of NY, I believe. One even acted in the film. I didn't see any reason why it wouldn't have been in a wider release. They screened it in about 3 cities. Then it went to DVD. It was paid for, in part, by a lawyer that the story was actually about. He seemed to really just want to get the story out there but I really feel that they had a product which film producers would've been able to distro to a wider audience. Really seems like either they didn't have a solid plan or they were being undersold in meetings that they attended.
If you're a first time filmmaker, they know that you won't have prior sales so there's no need in them even asking you. The only way to figure out the acquisition is to look at the product itself and see what they can do to get you in stores. Again, many investors don't know how to do that.
Tidbit.
"Puncture" is a movie that was created here in Houston with Chris Evans starring (that's the guy from Captain America and Fantastic 4, right?). The movie is slow but solid in my opinion. Shot nicely. Story is solid. First time direction by 2 brothers out of NY, I believe. One even acted in the film. I didn't see any reason why it wouldn't have been in a wider release. They screened it in about 3 cities. Then it went to DVD. It was paid for, in part, by a lawyer that the story was actually about. He seemed to really just want to get the story out there but I really feel that they had a product which film producers would've been able to distro to a wider audience. Really seems like either they didn't have a solid plan or they were being undersold in meetings that they attended.
tieuellegacy
Active member
Martay, I agree.
I agree with you, however I think we may have a slight miscommunication and are talking about two different things. I'm referring to an entirely different type of financing model with distributors. You're referring to them giving you some money based on an idea and then the filmmaker having to come up with the rest and hoping they get a big enough payoff once it's done to be happy and pay off their investors with profit (if they have any) -- OR paying for the entire film yourself however you can with whatever resources you have. I'm referring to using pre-sales where your funding is secured based on the talent in conjunction with a bank loan which is how Adam did it with his second feature film Tactical Force. He wasn't grilled about how much Corrado made, nobody that mattered cared, that's my only point. Nor are a lot of directors/producers making these types of films where you scrounge up money each project and hope the distribution company throws you a bone
. Most movies in Hollywood just aren't funded like that. If you have a marketable cast in place and a track record, a sales rep will back up your projections and the bank will finance the rest. There is no backend in this scenario, no hoping your film gets bought in a bidding war, no scrambling to pay back investors. You build your salary into the budget and once the movie is complete and delivered you get the rest of your bread and move on to the next project. I've not seen one episode where Mark Cuban bought into a script or movie pitch (I've seen a majority of them but not all). Most of the guys on that show are interested in tangible products or services that are already being sold with a fairly successful profit margin so that they can buy in and expand. They're not looking to buy into anything from the ground up that hasn't been proven. The equivalent of that for us would be for a filmmaker to walk in there with a finished product asking for more money in marketing so we can make more money and we have proof of good/decent sales -- but if that was the case why wouldn't we just go to a distribution company who has all the resources already in place to get your film out to the world and do the same thing?
There were only 210 movies released theatrically last year. Piles of movies, even with multi million dollar budgets, don't make it to the big screen for a plethora of reasons
Last edited:
HDkilledFILM.
Burnin' down the House
I'm referring to using pre-sales where your funding is secured based on the talent in conjunction with a bank loan which is how Adam did it with his second feature film Tactical Force. He wasn't grilled about how much Corrado made, nobody that mattered cared, that's my only point. Nor are a lot of directors/producers making these types of films where you scrounge up money each project and hope the distribution company throws you a bone
Right, and even that model of production is fizzling because overseas presales aren't anywhere near as high as they used to be.
tieuellegacy
Active member
I get what you're saying. I'll clarify. Good points by the way.
1) Banks are a tough way to get money, especially for films. They don't even finance homes the way they used to. I'll speak on that later.
2) The small distro company was just one means to an end. It was an example of what used to happen but doesn't happen anymore because they didn't find profit in it. They were investors and distro simultaneously.
3) I understand about talent "pre-sales". The same happens with bringing certain directors on. There's a letter of intent written where the investor, distro company, and others get geeked about it. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen because I have plenty of movies that show that it does. Again, the end goal of many of these films is to make money and reach theaters (even if it's a small amount). Most of these rarely hit theaters. If you're entire plan is to skip theaters altogether, which people will do, then you can make still money. I agree and it's best for most films. You have to figure out a model that will continue to work (win more than you lose). Low end sales on DVDs take a large hit from bootlegging so they don't recoup what they should making it harder to survive (I'm not saying that theatricals don't get bootlegged). The larger companies can eat the lost profit and keep moving. They don't typically talk about this. It goes back to support with sites like this. I'll talk about another example at the end.
4) After one investor doesn't make their $20k back, how likely is it that the same person will invest? Include distro companies in that.
You are definitely talking about a different type investor. They become film investors on a whim rather than being "born" into it (having several films that they financed). The former will beat your door down to see the returns. The latter may beat your door down less but they understand film. I'm not saying that banks never finance. They will finance companies ("Some Film Company" LLC). It's one reason why one filmmaker may have 10 LLCs under his/her name. You're selling more than just a movie. You're selling the yo yo's that talk, the clothing line and everything. It's possible.
Example- AFFRM is a film movement that is currently screening their latest offering from Ava Duvernay. She won the best drama (I believe) at Sundance for this current film "Middle of Nowhere" that was screened this week and set for an October release. They distro other films that aren't typically being picked up by majors (ex. Kinyarwanda, I Will Follow). Their following continues to grow with each film. They partnered with about 6-10 groups across the country to have limited screenings. AMC Theaters has a smaller leg for indie films like this and I believe they picked it up. "Mooz-lum" was one of two films that I saw distro'd through it.
How many people are on DVXuser? Is it thousands or tens of thousands? I remember seeing the number a while back. If 1/10 of those support you, there's a movement. This thread had almost 100k views. Martay's has about 20k views. They are repeat people and it's great to have. If a few more people converted from "this is me, hey look at me" to real support, then it goes a long way. "If 'if' was a 5th then we'd all be drunk." I get it. I'm just pointing it out. Don't kick the messenger into the hole (This is not SPARTA!). *laughs*
You can't have a movement without the support of the people. That was my entire premise. You can't force people to join you. You encourage them. There are different ways of doing that. It sounds greedy but in the end it's all about money. A smaller portion of that is about doing what you love to do. You might not have a budget sheet for your film but rest assured if you don't have money or people that have already spent money on cameras and other toys, you're not making a movie. You're having a rehearsal.
1) Banks are a tough way to get money, especially for films. They don't even finance homes the way they used to. I'll speak on that later.
2) The small distro company was just one means to an end. It was an example of what used to happen but doesn't happen anymore because they didn't find profit in it. They were investors and distro simultaneously.
3) I understand about talent "pre-sales". The same happens with bringing certain directors on. There's a letter of intent written where the investor, distro company, and others get geeked about it. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen because I have plenty of movies that show that it does. Again, the end goal of many of these films is to make money and reach theaters (even if it's a small amount). Most of these rarely hit theaters. If you're entire plan is to skip theaters altogether, which people will do, then you can make still money. I agree and it's best for most films. You have to figure out a model that will continue to work (win more than you lose). Low end sales on DVDs take a large hit from bootlegging so they don't recoup what they should making it harder to survive (I'm not saying that theatricals don't get bootlegged). The larger companies can eat the lost profit and keep moving. They don't typically talk about this. It goes back to support with sites like this. I'll talk about another example at the end.
4) After one investor doesn't make their $20k back, how likely is it that the same person will invest? Include distro companies in that.
You are definitely talking about a different type investor. They become film investors on a whim rather than being "born" into it (having several films that they financed). The former will beat your door down to see the returns. The latter may beat your door down less but they understand film. I'm not saying that banks never finance. They will finance companies ("Some Film Company" LLC). It's one reason why one filmmaker may have 10 LLCs under his/her name. You're selling more than just a movie. You're selling the yo yo's that talk, the clothing line and everything. It's possible.
Example- AFFRM is a film movement that is currently screening their latest offering from Ava Duvernay. She won the best drama (I believe) at Sundance for this current film "Middle of Nowhere" that was screened this week and set for an October release. They distro other films that aren't typically being picked up by majors (ex. Kinyarwanda, I Will Follow). Their following continues to grow with each film. They partnered with about 6-10 groups across the country to have limited screenings. AMC Theaters has a smaller leg for indie films like this and I believe they picked it up. "Mooz-lum" was one of two films that I saw distro'd through it.
How many people are on DVXuser? Is it thousands or tens of thousands? I remember seeing the number a while back. If 1/10 of those support you, there's a movement. This thread had almost 100k views. Martay's has about 20k views. They are repeat people and it's great to have. If a few more people converted from "this is me, hey look at me" to real support, then it goes a long way. "If 'if' was a 5th then we'd all be drunk." I get it. I'm just pointing it out. Don't kick the messenger into the hole (This is not SPARTA!). *laughs*
You can't have a movement without the support of the people. That was my entire premise. You can't force people to join you. You encourage them. There are different ways of doing that. It sounds greedy but in the end it's all about money. A smaller portion of that is about doing what you love to do. You might not have a budget sheet for your film but rest assured if you don't have money or people that have already spent money on cameras and other toys, you're not making a movie. You're having a rehearsal.
I get what you're saying, and we are definitely on the same page. Everything both of us has said we're pretty much already aware of. I still don't think support (or lack thereof) for Adam's first film had an impact on him being able to make his next film, but we can agree to disagree on that
dougspice
Veteran
I think it's clear from this thread and others that Adam set up the deal for Tactical Force as a result of his buzz from being in production on Corrado – in other words, he got the next thing going before the first one was done, which most people will tell you is a smart way to do things. If you wait until one project is out the door and available for people to view, you're creating downtime and risk (in the event they don't like the product).
I think as an indie film producer in this day you just have to look to more and more sources to get your funding, and diversify the risk. This is time-consuming and leaves your projects open to being left on the shelf, but unless you have a real PR buzz behind you, I just don't see many other options.
I think as an indie film producer in this day you just have to look to more and more sources to get your funding, and diversify the risk. This is time-consuming and leaves your projects open to being left on the shelf, but unless you have a real PR buzz behind you, I just don't see many other options.