InDigEnt not all it's cracked up to be? Wired Article - interesting.

this is interesting. would like to read someting like this that goes more in depth about the newer distribution channels and production models.

"If you don't own the means of distribution, there is no valid production model," Kliot said.

this is discouraging:

"People do make money from films, but it's very rarely the filmmakers," she said. "Distributors make money and producers make money. It doesn't matter if you've made your film for nothing or for $25 million."

i would like to read more facts that back this up and ideas about the best way for 'the filmmaker' to make it in todays world.

are the odds continually stacking higher against the filmmaker? and what can filmmakers do about it? re distribution, how do we make the newer tech work so that filmmakers can earn a good living from making films?

thanks luis for this read with my morning cupa coffee.
 
KOVAROVA said:
i would like to read more facts that back this up and ideas about the best way for 'the filmmaker' to make it in todays world.
Click to expand...


I found that to be the most disturbing part of the article as well.
Along with the 'Sundance' article that someone posted from the LA Times recently, it's a pretty bleak picture.

I'd be really curious to hear what someone like Mark Cuban would have to say in response - I actually sent him a link to the article (probably a long shot - but you never know).

There seem to be so many endless channels of distribution open now - yet there is still no lack of content. Even the best films don't seem to be making money for the filmmakers.

I've had three friends sell movies over the past year - not one saw any real return on them. Granted, they all at least broke even, and one made some money...but they all just considered themselves lucky to get distribution - and used that as a means to raise money for their next effort. It's great that they got their movies out there... but at the end of the day it isn't going to be enough just to be able to get funding for the next project - you have to be able to eat as well.

It's interesting, because in some ways it seems to be getting easier to get a movie distributed - but at the same time it seems harder to make a living doing it.
 
Ya know, something occured to me the last time I checked out an InDigEnt flick. As I'm watching Tape, which I really enjoyed by the way, I'm thinking what was the point of shooting the flick in that way? To my eyes, it didn't help the story at all, I found it more distracting than anything else actually.

I kind of feel like Linklater was just screaming 'LOOK HOW INDEPENDENT I AM! I'VE GOT THESE GREAT ACTORS AND A $400 CAMERA!' But it didn't help the overall film, so actually threw me off for a while.

Of course the plot and characters soon took over, and I was enthralled. And yes, it does prove the point that if you have a good script, you have a good film, but still. It would not have been without his means to shoot it in (I think) a more coherent way.

But that's just me.

Film? Video? Hell, lets just make movies and let the story/ budget/ necesities determine our format.
 
Nice article Luis!

The only thing cool thing about InDigEnt is the cool moniker. The problem is that their films just suck.

Tadpole sucked
Personal Velocity sucked
Pieces of April was enjoyable mainly due to the talent involved
November sucked
They need to quit making boring ass melo-dramas and lighthearted comedies about virgins or lesbians and start making something fun.

If they made more films like 28 Days Later (Digitally shot) then perhaps they'd see some reward's ? Let's face it, that film had balls and kicked ass.

Here are some interesting bites from the article:

Nine of the 15 films competing with Puccini for Sundance prizes are digital.
Click to expand...

I find this encouraging; we are not alone.

I will never make a movie again like this," said Puccini director Maria Maggenti. "That's nothing against InDigEnt. But I want a huge crew and big cameras and tons of money. I want to be able to pay for my locations. I want everyone to get a decent wage."
Click to expand...

Who the poo poo is this person ? She want's a bigger crew ? A Bigger budget ? Make a film worth a damn and we'll think about it Maria.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0535940/

...the cost of getting a film into theaters remains enormous.
Click to expand...

Another topic for Digital Distribution, right ? Maybe George 'King of Suck' Lucas is on to something
 
I think that is the ultimate point. No one ever said that filmmaking was a ticket to riches. If you look at the people who are on this site, almost all of us filmmakers, what percentage of us make a living off our productions?

I used to own a couple of record labels (nothing impressive, 12" vinyl releases) and we were set up with Majestic & Watts as our domestic distributors. The deal with a distributor is that they are taking your product and then selling it. If they do not sell it they ship it back to you, no payment. When/if they do sell it they are on Net90 contracts for getting you your money, and normally, because of the volume they are selling, you're lucking to see a dime within 6 months (the small penalities don't make it worth while for them to bust their arse to get it to you quicker).

If I knew then what I know now I never would have done a label, I would have been a distributor. That being said, unless their is significant volume and demand for that volume it is not always in a distributors best interest to push your product.

I don't know as much about film distribution, but I'm guessing it is pretty similar. Ultimately then we're left with the same old methods of distribution or independently distributing. Indie distro has a ton of benefits (you're making more per unit, no distributor is going to give you $10 a unit), but the downside is getting a significant volume out there to make it worth while and promoting it yourself.

Yeah, it sort of sucks, but this is the world we live in... Sonnyboo had an interesting article on the net as a method of distributing, I will see if I can find the link...

EDIT:
Hudson's comments are actually I think the most accurate. I saw November and it sucked. I wasn't impressed at all, not because it was digitally shot but because the story sucked. Hollywood keeps bitching about decreased box office returns and trying to figure out if they should release on DVD at the same time and everything else. They are paying millions for analysts to figure out how to fix people going to the movies, but it's really simple... Give us something worth watching and spending our $8-$15 on. The members on this site are more likely to see a movie because of what it was shot on, but most people don't care. And regarding that woman's comments about bigger this and that, well then don't shoot a digital film. Give me a break and give us something worth watching. Who's fault is it that you can't make a decent film. What a film is shot on is not going to determine how enjoyable it is, and wanting a big crew just means that you want more people to stroke your ego.
 
what are these "endless channels of distribution" is what im curious about? and what is the best route for the indy now? it seems that there are several roads / methods but where is the money in it all at? i know several producers that have only lost money.

Theatrical seems almost dead a buried. where is it all going.. vidcasts? $1 a download?
 
what about another pay per viewnetwork with all indy underground movies (the ones that don't win at festivals)? download straight to your tivo for $2 a pop. and the filmmakers share 50% the net. has this already been done?
 
To piggyback what John was saying I think it's actually simpler. The number one rule of filmmaking for independent filmmakers should be when you are putting together your budget for the project don't forget to include money to market it. A lot of us most likely include festival submission but nothing else for marketing.

Supply and demand works, but sometimes you have to get the word out to create demand.
 
I find it fascinating that when Walter Murch and Francis Ford Copola and George Lucas, etc. were in Film school all of their professors said "You guys might as well drop out, there's no money in film anymore. It's all over." This was when the studio system of Hollywood was crumbling and no one really knew what to do.

Then comes American Zoetrope and Filmmaking as we know it came into being.

I see us at a very similar cross-road. No one is really sure how digital fits in. No one is really sure what the impact of the iTunes method of distribution is. Too many people are saying "Well, that's it. 100 years of cinema was a really good run."

Well, I think very soon we'll see the next American Zoetrope, so to speak. I'm not sure what that is, but I am sure that the dream of being a filmmaker isn't going to die with Speilberg.
 
it is really easy to spend money on marketing and if your main goal is to gain theatrical release, then now a days you would be betting on the wrong horse. will that change? i dont know. we are at a huge cross-road it seems. the creative ideas that fuel filmmakers also need to fuel producers.. they need to figure out better ways to gain return on their product. clever marketing is a must.. but whithout knowing where you place your product you can end up in a whole lot of debt.
 
It’s really not that interesting or surprising. But talking about the “business” of film making on this forum is often as difficult as talking about which camera is better or politics, people are way too emotional or you get lots of platitudes like “it’s all about the story – which pretty much ends the conversation.

Filmmakers in general don’t want hear that you can have the best story ever, shoot it on 35mm, win “best of show” at Sundance and the odds are you are still going to loose money. Much of the discussion about the HVX is how filmic the image is, as though that’s the barrier for producing a movie that makes money. Again this is usually the time someone chimes in with another tried but true platitude – “it’s just a tool.”

The truth is that the entertainments current business model is failing for a whole host of reasons. Most, if not all of the commercial films are produced using the same equipment, with the same artists and actors, written [or re-written] by mostly the same writers and ultimately distributed by the same distributors. For the most part the only differentiation is the cost of production, and whether you shoot with a DVX100 or 35mm film the delta in costs savings means almost nothing.

One of the biggest challenges facing Hollywood is that the “process” for producing content is “inflexible,” it is always the same. The format is irrelevant; all projects must conform to the production pipeline. That’s fine when studios could “push” the content to the consumer through channels they controlled, broadcast video, film theaters etc.. To keep control studios gated the number of productions that were produced and how they were distributed.

That’s great, but now the consumers are flexing their muscle, not at the box office but at the iPod. Not over broadcast television but wirelessly. Not in standard definition but in high definition. The consumer is pulling the content to them and the companies who are making the money are the ones who can provide it. Interestingly enough, that’s not the studios because the “pipeline” they spent the last 50 years creating is not flexible enough to format the content in all the different ways required by the consumers electronics.

The reason I was initially encouraged about the HVX is not its potential for looking like film, but its potential from differentiating itself from all of the other types of production. Not film vs. DV but a video centric workflow vs. and IT based workflow and the potential that provides to completely re-engineer production.

Hollywood’s (Soderber’s) idea of using the new technology is to shoot with fewer lights and no-named actors. Big F***ing deal, I hope they didn’t stay up too late trying to figure that out.

Anyway, I’d like to see more in depth discussions about rethinking the business model so we can make money. For all you great filmmakers who want to continue rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, good luck…
:engel017:
 
ChuckS said:
Anyway, I’d like to see more in depth discussions about rethinking the business model so we can make money.
:engel017:
Click to expand...

me too chuck. if there are any producers or studio types lurking please chime in.
 
John_Hudson said:
She want's a bigger crew ? A Bigger budget ? Make a film worth a damn and we'll think about
Click to expand...
I think she was inferring that 12 dollars and 50 cents per day ($1500 divided by 120 days) is not enough income to make a living. And, she was the director. Imagine how little the crew members were paid. I sense a feeling of guilt in her comment, not greed.
 
ChuckS said:
The consumer is pulling the content to them and the companies who are making the money are the ones who can provide it.
Click to expand...

so who will provide it?

is the end user on a massive scale ready to download HD feature films? how? when?

what are some of the ships that aren't sinking?
 
thisiswells said:
I think she was inferring that 12 dollars and 50 cents per day ($1500 divided by 120 days) is not enough income to make a living. And, she was the director. Imagine how little the crew members were paid. I sense a feeling of guilt in her comment, not greed.
Click to expand...

She knew going in what the deal was. Like they promised her a rose garden ? Or maybe the film just sucks and she's placing blame on the medium ? (I'm speculating obviously)
 
KOVAROVA said:
so who will provide it?

is the end user on a massive scale ready to download HD feature films? how? when?

what are some of the ships that aren't sinking?
Click to expand...
By download do you mean from the web? If so, it will be a very long time before there's sufficient bandwidth to efficiently download HD content over the web.

However, there's really nothing to prevent the deployment of a common user interface that can route correctly fomated content over already existing infrastructures. For example I can search for a film on my cell phone on the way home, the transaction tackes place over the web and the devlivery happens via my local cable provider so the film is waiting for me on my PVR when I get home.

Apple didn't invent the mp3 player nor was it the first to offer downloading music for pay, and although the bulk of the downloads are probably by younger people today, the greatest growth potential is in the 45-70 demographic. Apple, as much as I hate to admit did a good job of lowering the barrier of complexity by providing a common user interface that's pretty much plug and play to the iTines store. The next step is for them to loose the computer. Oh yeh, that's called a cell phone/PDA. Do I really need a computer to download music?

Consumers simply want to watch what they want, when they want and on what device they want so its not so much an issue of "downloading" an HD title, content will eventally find its way to the best device for the concumer to view it on. Yes if I'm stuck on a train maybe I'd watch a movie on my PDA, doubfull but possible. More likely shows developed for television will be re-formatted for other devices, and when I say re-formatted I don't mean "resolution" but excerpts from "Desperate Housewives" for example might be edited together as part of a completely different style of program that is better suited for a small device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top