Distribuitors Preferences????
- Thread starter abalex
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes it's true.
It's a weeding-out process. They've learned this lesson after viewing thousands of horrible video films every year. If a project was shot on film, it means that someone, somewhere along the way, somehow thought highly enough about your project to put some money into it; obviously they saw some merit to your project.
Whereas if you shot on video, that tells them that nobody anywhere along the way thought enough about the project to put enough money into it so you could shoot on film.
Which tells them something. Not enough, mind you -- obviously there are some horrible film-shot movies and there are some fantastic video-shot movies.
But all complete novices who have no idea what they're doing will shoot on video instead of raising the money to shoot on film. So by limiting their viewing to film-shot films, they sidestep all the unwatchable first-time complete amateur pieces and instead can focus their energies on what will likely prove to be more marketable movies (because, if you were able to secure $50,000 or more to shoot on film, then there's probably some merit elsewhere in your production too).
Same bias used to exist against 16mm. Used to be that if you shot 35mm they'd look at it, but if you shot 16mm they wouldn't bother. For the same reason. But now that video's become so prominent, it's actually given Super16mm a lot more credibility again.
Same bias against DV. Now that there are so many awful DV movies being made, saying you shot on "DV" can get the door slammed in your face. But if you tell them you shot on HD, well, that's a different story -- HD is viewed up there with 16mm. For the same reason: it costs money to do it right. And if your project was compelling enough that you were able to raise that much money, then hey -- they'll take a chance on it. So HD is acceptable to distributors.
HDV will change that. They may be accepting HDV-shot pics now, but the day will soon come when HDV will be lumped in with DV for the same reason: too many cheap cameras means that it's accessible to too many newbie/amateurs, so they'll eventually raise the bar so that HDV becomes a warning sign to them. Not saying that a great film couldn't be shot on an HD100 or XLH1, but saying that too many people who don't know what they're doing will be able to afford a $1400 Sony HC1 consumer camera to shoot their "movie," and when that starts happening, it'll taint the process.
Also, if you shot on film, it's usually a whole lot expensive to make film prints from film than it is to make a film print from video. So they like the idea of having to spend less.
It's the same weeding-out process that literary agents use. If you don't have an agent, you can't get an agent. Why? Because 99% of the scripts that are written are unreadably awful, and 99% of the writers who are trying to get their scripts read are just not very good yet. So the agents figure that they'll let someone else be the guinea pig. If you have an agent already, that means that someone else thought highly enough of your work that they signed you; therefore all agents will now look at you. But if you don't have an agent, that means that nobody has thought highly enough of your work to sign you, so they won't bother either.
The way you break that catch-22 is to win a screenwriting contest, or to have someone that the agent respects give the agent a recommendation for you. Because again it's the same thing: if you win a screenwriting contest, that lets the agent know that you're good enough to talk to. And if the agent gets a recommendation from someone they trust, that again lets them know you're good enough to talk to.
There are just too many awful writers, and too many awful films, that if the agents and distributors gave them all equal time they'd never get anything done. They have to set a threshhold, a bar for entry that you have to pass. For a lot of distributors that means a star and/or shot on film, at the bare minimum. Just because you have a name actor and shot on film, that doesn't mean your movie's good enough to sell, but it dramatically raises the odds: because it means someone believed enough in your project to put forth the money so you could afford an actor and could afford film. That tells them it's worth looking at.
There are other reasons too, but this is a primary one. There just aren't enough hours in the day to go around, so they have to establish some cutoff point.
It's a weeding-out process. They've learned this lesson after viewing thousands of horrible video films every year. If a project was shot on film, it means that someone, somewhere along the way, somehow thought highly enough about your project to put some money into it; obviously they saw some merit to your project.
Whereas if you shot on video, that tells them that nobody anywhere along the way thought enough about the project to put enough money into it so you could shoot on film.
Which tells them something. Not enough, mind you -- obviously there are some horrible film-shot movies and there are some fantastic video-shot movies.
But all complete novices who have no idea what they're doing will shoot on video instead of raising the money to shoot on film. So by limiting their viewing to film-shot films, they sidestep all the unwatchable first-time complete amateur pieces and instead can focus their energies on what will likely prove to be more marketable movies (because, if you were able to secure $50,000 or more to shoot on film, then there's probably some merit elsewhere in your production too).
Same bias used to exist against 16mm. Used to be that if you shot 35mm they'd look at it, but if you shot 16mm they wouldn't bother. For the same reason. But now that video's become so prominent, it's actually given Super16mm a lot more credibility again.
Same bias against DV. Now that there are so many awful DV movies being made, saying you shot on "DV" can get the door slammed in your face. But if you tell them you shot on HD, well, that's a different story -- HD is viewed up there with 16mm. For the same reason: it costs money to do it right. And if your project was compelling enough that you were able to raise that much money, then hey -- they'll take a chance on it. So HD is acceptable to distributors.
HDV will change that. They may be accepting HDV-shot pics now, but the day will soon come when HDV will be lumped in with DV for the same reason: too many cheap cameras means that it's accessible to too many newbie/amateurs, so they'll eventually raise the bar so that HDV becomes a warning sign to them. Not saying that a great film couldn't be shot on an HD100 or XLH1, but saying that too many people who don't know what they're doing will be able to afford a $1400 Sony HC1 consumer camera to shoot their "movie," and when that starts happening, it'll taint the process.
Also, if you shot on film, it's usually a whole lot expensive to make film prints from film than it is to make a film print from video. So they like the idea of having to spend less.
It's the same weeding-out process that literary agents use. If you don't have an agent, you can't get an agent. Why? Because 99% of the scripts that are written are unreadably awful, and 99% of the writers who are trying to get their scripts read are just not very good yet. So the agents figure that they'll let someone else be the guinea pig. If you have an agent already, that means that someone else thought highly enough of your work that they signed you; therefore all agents will now look at you. But if you don't have an agent, that means that nobody has thought highly enough of your work to sign you, so they won't bother either.
The way you break that catch-22 is to win a screenwriting contest, or to have someone that the agent respects give the agent a recommendation for you. Because again it's the same thing: if you win a screenwriting contest, that lets the agent know that you're good enough to talk to. And if the agent gets a recommendation from someone they trust, that again lets them know you're good enough to talk to.
There are just too many awful writers, and too many awful films, that if the agents and distributors gave them all equal time they'd never get anything done. They have to set a threshhold, a bar for entry that you have to pass. For a lot of distributors that means a star and/or shot on film, at the bare minimum. Just because you have a name actor and shot on film, that doesn't mean your movie's good enough to sell, but it dramatically raises the odds: because it means someone believed enough in your project to put forth the money so you could afford an actor and could afford film. That tells them it's worth looking at.
There are other reasons too, but this is a primary one. There just aren't enough hours in the day to go around, so they have to establish some cutoff point.
Last edited:
Nice summmation Barry.
I concur. Many more doors are open to you if you have shot film, in my experience. Unfortunately , the bias still exists. Also, you can't discount the fact that distributors are considering an international marketplace (although that landscape has changed significantly with cable's implosion) where film is strong.
With regards to distributors, film, and the filter, it reminds me of Afflecks funny line about how the Hollywood decision makers will react if a Project Greenlight movie sucks for a third year. - ***mimics stogie in mouth*** "Yup. The system works! Don't need to change a thing. Keeps the good stuff in and the bad sh** out." ... In a way that's how distributors think too.
:beer:
I concur. Many more doors are open to you if you have shot film, in my experience. Unfortunately , the bias still exists. Also, you can't discount the fact that distributors are considering an international marketplace (although that landscape has changed significantly with cable's implosion) where film is strong.
With regards to distributors, film, and the filter, it reminds me of Afflecks funny line about how the Hollywood decision makers will react if a Project Greenlight movie sucks for a third year. - ***mimics stogie in mouth*** "Yup. The system works! Don't need to change a thing. Keeps the good stuff in and the bad sh** out." ... In a way that's how distributors think too.
:beer:
abalex
Well-known member
Great information Barry, and thanks. the reason I asked this it's because of the script Im working on right now. I have plans to shoot it next summer but Im still trying to choose the medium on which I'll be shooting. I know I have a good story but I'm scared to choose the wrong medium. I know that the most important thing is content but like you said the medium sometimes is important too.
I really wanna do it on S16 but at the same time Im thinking about Cinealta, DigiBeta or HVX200(this one being the most affordable option to me right now) I have a budget of 20g and Im sure I'll get more money by the time we shoot it, provably another 10 or 20g.
Question here: I do have and agent, I'm a screenwriter. Do think this type of agent could help me get distribution for something that I've already shot? I have two interesting short that I've done. You think I could use these shorts to get more money for my next project through my screenwriting agent?
thanks again
george
I really wanna do it on S16 but at the same time Im thinking about Cinealta, DigiBeta or HVX200(this one being the most affordable option to me right now) I have a budget of 20g and Im sure I'll get more money by the time we shoot it, provably another 10 or 20g.
Question here: I do have and agent, I'm a screenwriter. Do think this type of agent could help me get distribution for something that I've already shot? I have two interesting short that I've done. You think I could use these shorts to get more money for my next project through my screenwriting agent?
thanks again
george
Last edited:
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Shorts are good as pitching material. The guys who wrote and directed Broken got a budget for a feature on the strength of their short. I am in talks now with someone who is looking at funding my next film on the strength of my last short. Usually shorts won't get distribution though, but like I said, they work as excellent pitching materials (granted they're decent films).
abalex
Well-known member
Hi and thanks BRICEMAN for you answer but what I'm trying to say is that if I could use a screenwriting agent to go around town with my short film and get something from it. I have an agent so I just want to know if he could show my short instead of a script, can they do that?
thanks
thanks
Barry_Green
Moderator
An agent is a salesman. So if you've got a good agent, they can sell refrigerators to eskimos. Will they though? You're asking them to do something that's not their main business, and it's usually better to get a producer's rep to do that. Ask your agent if they know any good producer's reps.
$20g and Super16? That would be tough, tough, tough. You could do it, but you'll have a very short shooting ratio; S16 costs about $30/minute for stock and processing and SD telecine if you do it on the cheap; if you do it "right" it can cost closer to $60 to $100/minute. And even then, Super16 isn't nearly the sales draw that 35mm is.
Here's the standard advice I offer to anyone who asks: if you're asking whether you should shoot on film or video, shoot video. When it's time to shoot on film, you won't have to ask.
$20g and Super16? That would be tough, tough, tough. You could do it, but you'll have a very short shooting ratio; S16 costs about $30/minute for stock and processing and SD telecine if you do it on the cheap; if you do it "right" it can cost closer to $60 to $100/minute. And even then, Super16 isn't nearly the sales draw that 35mm is.
Here's the standard advice I offer to anyone who asks: if you're asking whether you should shoot on film or video, shoot video. When it's time to shoot on film, you won't have to ask.
Or, you could totally grind and try to get your video-shot-film distributed on your own.
>
Someone has to break down that barrier at SOME point. But the bad thing is, like Mr. Green said, there are too many HORRIBLE video-shot-films/movies. So, the good ones are overlooked.
I think if you think your story is strong enough, and you take the time to get the best looking digital image you can, you should be able to get it distributed through perserverance.
Great last line, Barry.
I think that's quote worthy.
>
Someone has to break down that barrier at SOME point. But the bad thing is, like Mr. Green said, there are too many HORRIBLE video-shot-films/movies. So, the good ones are overlooked.
I think if you think your story is strong enough, and you take the time to get the best looking digital image you can, you should be able to get it distributed through perserverance.
Great last line, Barry.
I think that's quote worthy.
abalex
Well-known member
A- the reason I've been thing about S16 it's because some discounts I've found. Kodak has 30% student discount on stock, Fotokem has student discount as well, they charge you 10 cents per ft. then I know some places that have great discount for telecine......I would transfer everyhing to DVCam and then edited on FCP. No film out.
B- If I do HD there's a place that can transfer the film to 35mm for 200 bucks a minute, that's the cheapest I've found.
thanks
g.
(the eternal questions of a stupid mind
B- If I do HD there's a place that can transfer the film to 35mm for 200 bucks a minute, that's the cheapest I've found.
thanks
g.
(the eternal questions of a stupid mind
Last edited:
abalex said:
You're asking US and not your agent that? Good scripts READ well. No short required.
Write a great feature and the doors will start to open. You might have to win a contest to prove your stuff is worth reading.
On distribution... if your budget is that low then shoot HVX (or HD-100). You're in a totally different class of movie than what I think Barry is talking about. Spend as much of your money ON SCREEN and not on the media. If your script is THAT good send it to actors agents to see if they'll get behind it.
I hired a low budget DVD distributor to coach ME. He told me "I don't have a clue what it's shot on and I don't care. " He went on to show me DVX100 type stuff that got some type of distribution and made a little money. Don't try making a drama with no stars. It'll never sell. A friend of mine did that on Super 16mm and won some awards with it. No stars, no distribution.
At your budget level the likelihood of theater distribution is so small it's probably not worth the cost of the pixels in this thread to worry about.
If your idea is INCREDIBLY good then try to sell the script and let someone else produce it with stars... you'll make more money and it'll launch a writing career.
Oh and distribution for a SHORT isn't going to happen. It's a business card essentially - and there are going to be 30,000 of them made this year.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Joelnet hit it out of the park on that one.