Distribution Interest?

LuzCruz

LuzCruz

Active member
I know some people on here would like to be paid for distributing their films, and I know some people on here just want to have them distributed whether they get paid or not. I was just curious to see what the percentage diffence there is between the groups and why they feel the way they do.

I personally would like my content distributed freely. Because uninhibited distribution reaches more people and my films are mediocre at best, so noone would pay for it anyways. :) what do you guys think?
 
i've thought about distributing my first film for free just to get my name out there AND because then I could create the soundtrack of my dreams.
 
I think it depends on the product and your goals. With things I have invested relatively large amounts of money and loads of time into, I can't AFFORD to distribute them freely. However, there are benefits to certain free distribution deals, even when you need to turn a profit. When trying to sell DVDs I find that allowing a few free broadcasts here and there works out as a sort of free advertisement, and even if a station doesn't want to PAY for the broadcast rights you can get some decent barter deals for ad time.

With short "for fun" films and experimental projects that are rather difficult to market then yeah, I'm all for the "just get it out there and get it seen" approach. However, if I think something is "mediocre at best" I'm usually hesitant to even GIVE it away, so some things just sit on the computer collecting virtual dust!
 
With shorts, I would be more willing to get them out there to be seen. With something longer, I'd look to get paid for it.
 
It's a mixed bag. A big part of it is how hard you want to work to market it and yourself and how good a feel you have on the interest in your work.

I sold Hunting Camp because it cost me some money and I bundled it with a full soundtrack of local bands to get them some exposure too for helping me out. We put decent money into getting the DVD/CD sets pro-made so those I self-distributed (with help from Jarred) and charged for.

It's really up to you and how much interest you can see exists in your project and your name. Once I had 400 people come to the film's premiere I knew that we should have no problem moving copies for sale. Granted I gave away 100 sets, but the rest were sales.

But then after that short movie I made up a DVD of a short experimental film I made called BOGO and I just gave that away with HC orders and to anyone who asked for it.

Indie movies are a hard sell because usually people have no idea who you are, it's up to you to change that one way or another.
 
HorseFilms said:
With shorts, I would be more willing to get them out there to be seen. With something longer, I'd look to get paid for it.
Click to expand...

Well, of course. Give the shorts away...then someone sees them and hands you a boatload of money to make a feature.

At which point, you already got paid, so who cares how they distribute that? You're already on your next project.
 
Fellow Las Vegas filmmaker Mike Conway spent about $27,000 making a sci-fi film in his back yard (shot on 16mm film, he built a big spaceship set in his backyard, etc). Tried the festival route, got nowhere, and after trying to get distribution for a while he put it on his shelf and went back to work to pay down the credit card debt.

Then he joined indieclub.com, and got an idea -- he decided to give away 100 copies of his film "Terrarium." Completely free, to the first 100 IndieClubbers who asked. In fact, Mike would pay the postage. He just wanted to get it out there and get it seen and get some fellow filmmaker feedback so he could learn what he did right, what he did wrong, and improve for the next one.

Well, it caused some buzz. Next thing you knew Mike had a producer's rep shopping the film and selling international rights to small territories like Thailand. And most recently, they sold the US rights to Mainline/Lighting, which repackaged it as "War of the Planets" (any confusion with "War of the Worlds" being purely intentional, I'm sure) and they sold it to Lion's Gate.

I'm sure he didn't get rich off the deal, I doubt he even got enough to pay for what it cost to make the film. But the point is, it was sitting on his shelf doing nothing. Having gone grass-roots and even giving it away, that got some buzz going and secured a distribution deal. Had he shot it on the DVX instead of 16mm, the costs would have been lowered enough that he probably would have made a decent cash-on-cash profit (not counting labor of course!) And now his pic is in most Blockbuster/Hollywood stores across the U.S. That will certainly give him a leg up as compared to never-distributed filmmakers when it comes time for him to make his next pic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top