Former FOX studio exec talks about the future of indies

jls4 said:
I don't see it this way. Because how would consumers even know you exist? The average consumer doesn't go in "looking for" an indie movie, they go looking for something "interesting". The internet revolution, in my opinion, will destroy indies with movies sub $3M and may hurt many that are under $10M.

I look at like this, say I go to Amazon.com and I want to buy some vitamins. I'm going to buy based on rating, most sold, etc. I'm not going to look for the "new vitamin". The Internet lets users dictate what's good and bad, which can be good. But investors don't want to wait until 100 people watch the movie and give it a good rating and then it still takes 10 years for you to recoup the money. They want the money in a "reasonable time", i.e. 2 to 4 years.

Imagine by your scenario that to get back money on a $5M movie it would take 25 Million people to watch the movie at $.20. That's roughly 6% of the American population. I can't think of any indies who have gone self-distribution that have sold more than 5K units. In fact, I know a guy who sold 75K CDs out of his car and it took him 12 months to do it. And even that number is no where close to 25 Million people. Youtube doesn't even get hits like that now.

Internet distribution IMO will really hurt indies in the long and short run for anyone who can't raise at least $20M. It'll only help those who already are established, or for some reason find a way to go uber-viral. And even then remember people are "paying" for it. Would anything go viral if people had to pay to watch?

$1 Million Film via Internet needs 5 Million Viewers
$500K Film needs 2.5 M Viewers
$100K Film needs 500K Viewers

Most Viral Videos Based on MSNBC

Star Wars Kid (900 million)
Numa Numa (700 million)
One night in Paris (400 million) [Paris Hilton Video]
Kylie Minogue: Agent Provocateur (360 million)
Exploding whale (350 million)

But remember most of these are clips and p0rn, LOL not 90 minutes of somebody's time.
Click to expand...

It levels the playing field for indies who want to self distribute / advertise.

This is just for Netflix, your not taking into account dvd sales through retailers. It's better for everyone, studios and indies. Would you rather make 99 cents on a dvd sold to netflix that gets seen 1,000 times or 20 cents on each order (1,000) through netflix?

If your trying to recoup 100% of your budget back through netflix rentals as your only outlet you need to get out of the business and hang it up today.
 
Last edited:
Cranky said:
But I can admit that I am different than an "average" consumer.....Now a set like mine costs about $800, which I consider dirt cheap. This is a monthly lease payment of a MB or Audi. I drive a Toyota, but I've got my big-ass TV :-)
Click to expand...

No doubt, most of us on this board are more tuned in to TV technology than John Q. Public.

Inflation sucks in '09, but you can get some INSANE deals on TV's. Ours is only 42' and mounted, but I want to go bigger, dammit! :Drogar-Sick(DBG)::Drogar-Sick(DBG):

Sorry to derail from the original article/discussion.
 
ChipG said:
It levels the playing field for indies who want to self distribute / advertise.

This is just for Netflix, your not taking into account dvd sales through retailers. It's better for everyone, studios and indies. Would you rather make 99 cents on a dvd sold to netflix that gets seen 1,000 times or 20 cents on each order (1,000) through netflix?

If your trying to recoup 100% of your budget back through netflix rentals as your only outlet you need to get out of the business and hang it up today.
Click to expand...

I think in essence we're saying the same thing.

My point is that indies with budgets sub $1M in the future will be a dying breed. Which is why maybe Bill M believes that the indiependents with budgets of $3-20M will make a comeback. Basically the indies under $1M won't be able to make a profit, thereby clearing the saturation and allowing the movies above $3M to do better. But the difference in what we are saying is that I don't think those that are under $10M will be able to exist either not because of the quality, but because of marketing expenses.
 
ChipG said:
JLS,

If you read my post: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1762994&postcount=26 I never said internet downloads, talking about a future distribution method that isn't out yet. Think of it as pay per view on your cable tv but the entire netflix library to choose from, no mailing dvd's or down loading them via the net.
Click to expand...

Question: If you put out a movie, under this scenario, show me how you'd make money for a $500K budget, a $1M budget, a $3M, a $5M, a $20M?

That's what I'm having trouble with, seeing how this financially helps. So if you can help me to see what's in your head through examples, it'll help me to understand. But I want to know how it would work from a consumer perspective, not a high level.
 
jls4 said:
Question: If you put out a movie, under this scenario, show me how you'd make money for a $500K budget, a $1M budget, a $3M, a $5M, a $20M?

That's what I'm having trouble with, seeing how this financially helps. So if you can help me to see what's in your head through examples, it'll help me to understand. But I want to know how it would work from a consumer perspective, not a high level.
Click to expand...

I give up, I really do...
 
Barry_Green said:
It is the very definition of resolution.
Click to expand...
Resolution is number of pixels per size of display area or per length of one dimension of display area, as in pixels per square inch or pixels per inch. Frame size in pixels is well, just number of pixels.
 
ChipG said:
I give up, I really do...
Click to expand...

Don't worry I was going to say that was my last post on the subject because I yeild on it. Maybe I don't know what the heck I'm saying OR I just can't communicate it well. LOL :violin:
 
This article is from the perspective of a studio head. The movie business he's talking about is making $100 million movies. Independent film producers aren't the filmmakers making no-budget movies.

The movie business has changed and the distribution business is changing along as well. I haven't read a thread by someone making $100 million dollar movies anywhere on the Internet. Why would they take the time, right?

None of the 5 star thread filmmakers are talking about the movie business here either. There is an anomaly here. Let's keep things in perspective.

The big movie executive who wrote this article isn't speaking about us indie filmmakers here. Many indie filmmakers try to break into the movie industry through low budget movies. Low budget movies used to be shot in 35mm. It could be done then; but not now, not with mickey mouse digital cameras. And it's true, the quality of digital has improved to the point of it being acceptable for audiences to view on big screens, but then there is the glut of movies (which is also growing exponentially) and therefore it is harder to breakthrough with small movies. It's not impossible; just a one chance in 10,000,000 movies produced on low budget and maybe one in 1,000,000,000 no-budget movies will make it to the big screen and make millions, not just get screened in festivals that don't pay anything.

Yes, distributors can pick up a movie in festivals and even studios, but what do they pay? And what are the odds that they will pay?

If 10,000 indie filmmakers are making movies today, how many of them are going to end up as big as Steven Spielberg? Get realistic, come down to earth, plant your feet firmly on the ground; you're young now, don't spend a lifetime on dreaming about fantasies.

Make movies, yes; it's a great life: become a real filmmaker, make the films you want to make. Be smart and work hard. Don't sell yourself short and don't get cheated by BS Artists.
 
Cranky said:
Resolution is number of pixels per size of display area
Click to expand...
Exactly. And we're talking about HD, having six times the number of pixels as SD. The very definition of having "more resolution". You are, after all, going to display that HD and SD somewhere, I presume?
 
Hmm

Hmm

Lots of replies. Interesting stuff.

Well, for me, and I think for most movie fans, Blu-ray makes a big enough difference to be well worthwhile! I love watching my favorites films in such good quality, it's highly noticeable and just looks gorgeous. I would assume why most of us are in filmmaking is because it's more than "just a movie" to us. Film, media, etc. is a huge part of my life. I can't imagine life without movies and TV shows, it would seriously SUCK. Oh I could go read a book. Uhh, great. I'd rather just drink away the rest of my days, lol.

I don't think that in general you can say that spending $100K, $200K, etc. on an indie film is any sort of great investment, I mean let's be a bit realistic here. If you want to make money, I'm not sure that's a good way to go, LOL. I think it's a pretty terrible idea frankly. But my reason for still being adamant about plowing ahead with my $140,000 feature is because it's not just about the money. There's a chance I could make a profit, but I see that chance as actually somewhat minimal. I am more so just hoping that I can at least get back $75,000 or so, and a lot of people would say well that's a terrible business decision to do something you think will lose you money. Well, for one, I don't necessarily think that, I just realize that's a solid possibility. But two, it's a necessary step in my career. I'm not going to get where I want as a director or screenwriter by just sitting on the sidelines. I need to prove my abilities, and having a feature that is out there, sold to a distributor, etc., would be a positive step in that direction. So it's an investment in my career.

But purely as a great business plan, uhhh, not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top