Ink???

[Chamber005]

Which is still a much better fate than "Ink", which was pirated prior to release and has left the producers without any recourse to ever recover the money they spent.

The half-million eyeballs on "Ink" are pirates, who (last I heard) had contributed a grand total of $400 to the filmmakers, or about 1/10 of one penny each.

At least NYP still has the potential of getting bought someday.

Yeah, that's why I picked up the blu-ray. Same reason I picked up The Zombie Diaries. If a low budget digi indie feature can actually hold my interest from start to finish, I will almost always pick up the DVD or blu-ray if for nothing else but some inspirational commentary.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yep, i mean im not shooting Meshes of the Afternoon Blaine hehe, its like for example historical documentaries, or promotional films (for the commercial work) but they will appear 'worthy'.

I guess you can imagine from a lot of the BBC productions you get over there - as an example of the aiming point even for a lot of private artistic commercial work.

Personally speaking i wouldnt make an arthouse or avante guarde feature film - but i would look to bring in an artistic/genre hyrbid element myself. I think personally too many feature directors in the States take there emulative cue from Hollywood, like showing up to fight an 500 trunked elephant with a cotton bud. heheh (er... yes!)

 

[Blaine]

Well, Lawrie, when you get into Hollywood produced features you run into the problem of cost. you are dealing with SAG, DGA, WGA and IATSE along with others like the Teamsters. If you shoot a movie dealing with all the unions and guilds your costs are going to be high. If you can't make your money back on the film, it's going to be your last. Robert Zemeckis made Used Cars in 1980 and didn't get another chance to direct a Hollywood movie until 1984 with Romancing the Stone. Had that not done well at the box office, we'd likely not have seen Back to the Future. Now, I loved Used Cars but it was NOT considered a success in Hollywood. Box office is huge. (To paraphrase) Make money or perish.

 

[lawriejaffa]

I know... your quite right Blaine - its a killer, i mean my companies first features will be funded directly from nets from commercial work, and they will be modest forays budget wise, though we have our talents and gear already.

Unions have less influence in the UK indy film sphere. I'm not sure what the stigma is like for non-union films in the States, but in the UK, its (imo) fairly expected that the vast majority of modest to micro indies wont be union films.

Still gonna cost though... still needs to profit - oh the joys!

 

[Blaine]

Well, obviously, most indies are not full union projects. If the director isn't union and you don't want to use a union UPM or AD, you don't go union. Actually, if the director isn't union, you can't use an experienced union UPM or AD. The most common place for the union to show it's face is SAG. There is no stigma against non-union films per se. The point I was making was that the Hollywood movies are the way they are due to financial concerns first and foremost.

 

[lawriejaffa]

The point I was making was that the Hollywood movies are the way they are due to financial concerns first and foremost.

Yep ain't that the truth!

 

[Zak Forsman]

Yeah, that's why I picked up the blu-ray. Same reason I picked up The Zombie Diaries. If a low budget digi indie feature can actually hold my interest from start to finish, I will almost always pick up the DVD or blu-ray if for nothing else but some inspirational commentary.

Here's my idea. Independent filmmakers with no names attached and no other surface-level value would be wise to clear away as much resistance between their film(s) and their audience as possible. and that can even mean making the work immediately available after a festival run and possibly even for free if taken to the extreme. Ask yourself how many DVDs you've bought of a film you've never seen before? Not many, I'd imagine. DVDs are generally sold when people see something they like and they want to own a piece of it. But before they're ready to buy, they don't want to invest too much to "audition" it – so they rent it or they stream it or they download it illegally.

Now, considering that manufacturing costs for DVDs are about $1 per disc and sell for about $15-$25, they have the most potential for the motivated filmmaker to make real money from their work by selling them directly.

and that is why I think the piracy issue remains a gray area in terms of value. yes, it's ethically wrong. no question. but it is also the reality of how half a million people saw INK and the reason why people are writing about it. yes, it killed the filmmakers' potential for conventional distribution (as unlikely as that would have been anyway), but without that kind of attention and buzz surrounding it, Chamber005 and Barry would have likely never sought out the DVD or Blu-ray. And I certainly would have never paid to stream it.

Personally, I think the INK filmmakers were in a bad spot before the onslaught of illegal downloads began because they took a $250k gamble on a film in an unpopular genre with no names using regional actors and unrefined filmmaking. Budget aside, those aren't critiques, mind you, but I would limit that kind of work to no more than $50k. The value of the attention they've received is more than they could have realistically hoped for had there been no torrent frenzy.

And they had seemed to give up on conventional distribution anyway. I'm speculating but it looks like they opted to go through an aggregator to self-fulfill orders for Netflix and Blockbuster and they opened their own store making domestic and international sales directly to the audience – this probably killed the potential for a distribution deal before the pirating did.

 

[Blaine]

Very good analysis, Zak.

 

[David W. Richardson]

and that is why I think the piracy issue remains a gray area in terms of value. yes, it's ethically wrong. no question.

More importantly, it's legally wrong.

And I don't think piracy has ANY value. If a filmmaker chooses to give their movie away free as part of a long range marketing strategy, that's fine. But for people to just outright steal the movie -- there is no legitimate excuse for that whatsoever. No one should pretend that criminal theft has a benefit.

 

[David W. Richardson]

And they had seemed to give up on conventional distribution anyway. I'm speculating but it looks like they opted to go through an aggregator to self-fulfill orders for Netflix and Blockbuster and they opened their own store making domestic and international sales directly to the audience – this probably killed the potential for a distribution deal before the pirating did.

You may be right. Or trying to sell the movie this way might just be their last resort, after pirates killed any other chances they might have had.

Whatever the case, even if they couldn't sell it, that doesn't give anyone the right to steal it from them.

 

[Zak Forsman]

well, sticking their head in the sand isn't going to resolve INK's woes. Embracing it as a publicity tool DEFINITELY has had value for them. It's the ONLY reason we're talking about the film at all. It's the only reason it came up on most people's radar who ARE inclined to shell out $25 for a blu-ray. i'm not excusing the action. I'm talking about making the best of something that is a part of what we do, whether we like it or not. Take a look at what Jamie King is doing. He's had some credible success in turning the illegal download community into a paying one.

http://vodo.net

You may be right. Or trying to sell the movie this way might just be their last resort, after pirates killed any other chances they might have had.

Whatever the case, even if they couldn't sell it, that doesn't give anyone the right to steal it from them.

they had the store going before the torrent frenzy started. someone probably bought it and uploaded it. although i wouldn't be surprised if they leaked it themselves to generate interest and it spiraled out of control. I've considered doing the same.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Any attempt to paint piracy as somehow beneficial to filmmakers is just going to embolden the pirates, which is the last thing any of us should want.

Nobody should be finding ways to profit from piracy. Piracy may never go away completely. But when people start finding ways to exploit piracy, then it's going to be harder and harder to put an end to it.

Piracy needs to be punished severely, made as unprofitable as possible, and stamped out of existence. Stealing is stealing. "Making the best of it" is just going to give the pirates an excuse to rationalize their actions.

Stepping off the soapbox now.

 

[David W. Richardson]

One last thing...

When people steal -- whether it's movies, CD's, copies of Final Cut Pro, or whatever -- it only serves to drive the cost of those things UP for all the rest of us. I don't know about you, but I can't afford it.

Now I'm done.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Who am I kidding? I ain't done yet.

someone probably bought it and uploaded it. although i wouldn't be surprised if they leaked it themselves to generate interest and it spiraled out of control. I've considered doing the same.

You mean you've considered putting your movie online where anyone who wants to can download it for free? I can see giving away free copies of the DVD, but putting it online like that seems incredibly risky. If I had $250k in my movie, I'd never take that kind of gamble.

I suspect, as you say, someone bought it and uploaded it. Which is theft, and has cost the producers a huge amount of money. I doubt they will ever again be able to make another movie. (Though they may surprise me.)

An analogy occurs to me....

You buy $250k worth of gold as an investment, intending to hold onto it until the price goes up, then sell for a tidy profit. I come along and steal your gold. You tell the sad story of the theft to the world, and a few sympathetic people send you a few bucks -- less than $1,000. Now.....was my stealing your gold a 'benefit' to you? Granted, that's $1,000 you wouldn't have had otherwise. But does that really help you when you've lost $250,000?

Maybe the producers of 'Ink' would never have made any money off of it. We'll never know.

 

[Lance Bailey]

Although not necessarily my genre, I think they did a good job bringing this tale to life. We can knitpick all the magic bullet effects and such, but I have to say the acting wasn't bad at all for this level of budget. The little girl was great. ANY filmmaker who can get their story told, should be celebrated for doing so. Too many people want to find fault. Why don't they just go out and get something done themselves.

 

[killacam]

well I never heard of this movie before reading the thread but it looks pretty interesting and I might try to watch it eventually. I happen to be a fan of the genre though. as far as the torrenting, I think definitely it has been used before as a sort of marketing tool, and as word-of-mouth advertising ("The Man From Earth" was one movie that did this successfully) and it has probably helped this movie get some exposure. I can say I probably would not have ever heard of it if not for that. the filmmakers seem to recognize this and had this to say on their blog (doubleedgefilms.blogspot.com):

"Over the weekend Ink jumped from a position of 12,991 on IMDB to #16 and is thus currently ranked higher than most major Hollywood titles.

Who knew that the file sharing community has so much power? The exposure for our film has been unprecedented and we have spent no money on advertising. As far as I know, no studio in history has ever driven a film up out of obscurity so fast. Turns out the audience now really does have all the control.

Our reaction has been to encourage the file sharing. The ethical argument for and against file sharing is very complicated, however, if the file sharers have the filmmaker's blessing to pass it around, there is unquestionably no injustice done. The fact is we own all the rights to Ink and the file sharers absolutely have our blessing. It would be a lie and naive to say that it's not benefitting our film exponentially."

cynically I think they might have done it on purpose but in any case, how many of those 500,000 people would have watched their movie otherwise? I really think only a very few would have actually gone out of their way to pay to see a movie that most have never even heard of without any other advertising or exposure. so it is a "double edged sword" in a way.

 

[Chamber005]

The whole torrent thing terrifies me. I won't even click on a link some stranger sends me in email, let alone download massive files off of some random site. People are asking for trouble.

And speaking of random sites, how is it possible that a site that allows copyrighted material to be downloaded still exist? I thought they squashed all that stuff in the Napster case way back when. Why wouldn't these filmmakers be filing lawsuits against these companies (or even individuals)? It's actually pretty cheap to sue someone, especially if you're going after 5K here, 5K there from individuals who have uploaded you copyrighted material onto the web. That's small claims court. Cost you about 100 bucks.

I saw it via Netflix and, like I said, that prompted me to purchase the blu-ray (along with finding out what their budget and woes have been).

I guess I just don't understand the problem with torrent stuff. If I was downloading and distributing new Marvel comics online every month, you better believe they'd shut me down. I'm surprised more filmmakers aren't suing the owners of these sites. I know I would. Who needs distribution or large sales numbers when you can simply sue the company that's allowing your materials to be broadcast?

 

[Chamber005]

well I never heard of this movie before reading the thread but it looks pretty interesting and I might try to watch it eventually. I happen to be a fan of the genre though. as far as the torrenting, I think definitely it has been used before as a sort of marketing tool, and as word-of-mouth advertising ("The Man From Earth" was one movie that did this successfully) and it has probably helped this movie get some exposure. I can say I probably would not have ever heard of it if not for that. the filmmakers seem to recognize this and had this to say on their blog (doubleedgefilms.blogspot.com):

"Over the weekend Ink jumped from a position of 12,991 on IMDB to #16 and is thus currently ranked higher than most major Hollywood titles.

Who knew that the file sharing community has so much power? The exposure for our film has been unprecedented and we have spent no money on advertising. As far as I know, no studio in history has ever driven a film up out of obscurity so fast. Turns out the audience now really does have all the control.

Our reaction has been to encourage the file sharing. The ethical argument for and against file sharing is very complicated, however, if the file sharers have the filmmaker's blessing to pass it around, there is unquestionably no injustice done. The fact is we own all the rights to Ink and the file sharers absolutely have our blessing. It would be a lie and naive to say that it's not benefitting our film exponentially."

cynically I think they might have done it on purpose but in any case, how many of those 500,000 people would have watched their movie otherwise? I really think only a very few would have actually gone out of their way to pay to see a movie that most have never even heard of without any other advertising or exposure. so it is a "double edged sword" in a way.

I dunno, they're giving credit to the torrent thing, but I feel like those numbers could be completely in error. I mean, who is actually keeping track of what illegal material is being downloaded and from where? When I turned on my Xbox 360 and went to Netflix, Ink was the first movie listed. The cover art and synopsis was cool, so I clicked on it.

I'm just not sure if they're giving too much credit to the whole piracy thing. Ink's "fame" might be much more legitimate than they think. Or, heck, maybe most of those downloads were in Japan or China or Germany -- in fact, they probably were! I wouldn't be surprised if most of their IMBD percentage stuff and new sales are from a domestic audience seeing the movie legally. IMO

 

[Barry_Green]

I'm a big supporter of this film. It's far from perfect, but I give them a lot of credit for making an honest to God movie, and going for the fantasy angle. I wish more of the current crop of indie films were as ambitious and tackled fantastical stories. I felt like this had a very very good use of imagination and a downright Gilliam-esque bent.

Agreed.

If I had to register the #1 thing I think they did "wrong", it was their choice of language. The first three words of dialogue in the entire film are the same: the "f" word. Which I think totally eliminated the film from contention for distribution. Two "f" words means an automatic "R" rating, and this film is not thematically set up to be an "R", it's a PG to PG-13 fantasy fairy tale. Forcing an "R" on it puts it in an unmarketable position.

But if I had to love every aspect of every film I supported, I'd like basically none of the indie films I've seen in the past year. They all had whopping flaws that I overlooked because I liked what the filmmakers were about and what they were trying to accomplish. I give a lot of slack in those cases.

Agreed again.

But besides its flaws, I support these people whole-heartedly, because when no one wanted their movie, they didn't curl up in a ball and die, but tuned up the elbow grease and got to work.

Agreed again.

As for the budget, it's not hard for me to see spending that amount of money on a production of that scope at all.

I take the opposite tack here, I dare anyone to produce a work if this scope at less than what they spent. Without involving slave wages and images of sweatshops; assuming these people paid a reasonable wage to all who worked on it, I have no problem at all believing that they spent a couple hundred thousand on crew & food. Look at the size of the cast list. Look at the number of locations. Listen to it, it actually has decent sound.

I wish they would have thought through the makeup on Ink himself, the nose just didn't work. And they could have spent some more on wardrobe for the "freedom fighters" or whatever they were.

But -- seriously... this film is nothing to be embarrassed about. It's a real movie that tells a story, the acting was believable (except for the haircutting lady, I hated that bit), the sound was fine, the imaginativeness was great, the guys with TV faces were well done... it was fine. And it has a 6.8 on IMDB from almost 3,000 voters -- how many indie/guerilla pictures can claim that? That's gotta be representative of some real audience votes, and not just cast & crew votes like many guerilla films get.

I actually thought the 10-minute behind-the-scenes was the worst thing on the DVD, because it totally cheapened the film. The movie looks and plays pretty legitimately, as long as you overlook the room made of garbage bags or other cheap-outs. But then when you see how it was made, and you see the producer is the one sewing together the costumes, and that they bought a little HDV camera to shoot it on... I don't think any of that does the film any favors. It cheapens it.

IMO there's just not a lot of this indie stuff that's actually even watchable. This flick, despite budget constraints, was completely watchable.

Yep. Agreed again.

But, unlike so much indie stuff that's unwatchable because they reached way, way, way too far beyond what they were actually capable of, I think Ink's ambition isn't wildly unrealistic. So many indie films feature horrible CGI or awful fake explosions or whatever, that just have you rolling your eyes and hating their choices. In Ink, it's reasonably executed. Yes the makeup on the lead was "too much" and yes the hall of saran wrap garbage bags was too ambitious for how they pulled it off, but overall, it pretty much works.

Rarely ever do I see a film like this, that reaches so far, succeed on any level. But I think Ink didn't reach too much further than they could grasp, and they actually tried something very ambitious. It's pretty well done.

(of course, let's keep in mind that I was watching it on a big-screen TV and not from some torrented pirated little window on a computer; perhaps the viewing experience taints the way people feel about the film. I can well imagine that this played very well in festivals.)

 

[Mark Harris]

I take the opposite tack here, I dare anyone to produce a work if this scope at less than what they spent. Without involving slave wages and images of sweatshops; assuming these people paid a reasonable wage to all who worked on it, I have no problem at all believing that they spent a couple hundred thousand on crew & food. Look at the size of the cast list. Look at the number of locations. Listen to it, it actually has decent sound.

I think we're saying the same thing, not opposite.