Interesting article about people giving their movies away for free

[Mark Harris]

I guess you're right Barry, maybe we should all be making parodies...these guys made pretty good return on t-shirts and stuff.

A lot of this has been covered extensively in the DIY movement, but in case you haven't seen this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/200912...jbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawN3aHlpbmRpZWRpcmU-

One more example of this is the kid who made the cheap robot movie and got a deal out of it. Using free means of dist to get the word out...

Hey mods, maybe a sticky thread of subsection devoted to DIY and alternate distribution techniques? Just to keep stuff like this in one place?

 

[Chris Santucci]

I believe distributors have been releasing films online for free for quite a while now via file hosting sites like Rapidshare, etc.

.

 

[Chamber005]

I guess you're right Barry, maybe we should all be making parodies...these guys made pretty good return on t-shirts and stuff.

A lot of this has been covered extensively in the DIY movement, but in case you haven't seen this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/200912...jbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawN3aHlpbmRpZWRpcmU-

One more example of this is the kid who made the cheap robot movie and got a deal out of it. Using free means of dist to get the word out...

Hey mods, maybe a sticky thread of subsection devoted to DIY and alternate distribution techniques? Just to keep stuff like this in one place?

The online mold seems to be: release it for free and then take it down and leave up the preview. I think this especially works in episodic dramas and certainly with parody stuff like Star Wreck.

Things like Angel of Death and Dr. Horrible have seen a lot of success doing things in this manner.

I don't think giving away a feature really is of the same value, though, as giving away the episodic drama or parody. Even Angel of Death, which Bruebaker wrote knowing that it would someday be a complete piece, wrote it moreso as an episodic drama, with minor story arcs throughout.

Regardless of what you do, though, I think the mold is pretty well defined. If you address upfront that it's a limited engagement, and can have the thing online released episodically for 4-6 months for free and market the heck out of it, the word of mouth plus kick ass trailer could be the perfect mix for strong self-distro profits. And even online viewers coming late to the party will appreciate that at least for a time, you gave it all away for free. Online viewers respect free content. To them it means you're not afraid that your project sucks, that you're so confident in the word of mouth that you were willing to show it to people at no cost. It seems bizarre, but to online viewers there's something wholesome and very artistic-minded and confident about filmmakers who are wanting to give away their art just for the sake of embracing an audience. In many ways it personifies the best aspects of the wide web.

But, IMO, if what you're putting online wouldn't work as a graphic novel released in individual comic book format, it probably won't gain much traction unless its a parody of an existing title.

 

[MichaelP]

There is a concept that the film itself is loss leader or marketing to a greater need. Selling T-shirts and other objects is certainly a revenue for the filmmaker and buying a DVD with extra content is smart. Even though you can watch TV shows online, VOD, for free, people still buy it from iTunes or DVD for a variety of reasons - portability, quality, extras, etc. If going this route, you really need to plan ahead what those extra items will be when the film itself is free. And as stated, it most likely works for some types of films and not others. I can't see this working for a film like "The Door in the Floor."

Michael

 

[arroway]

Online sales of merchandise - including T-shirts and collector's editions of the DVD - have generated $430,000 on a film that only cost $21,500 to make, Vuorensola says.

$21k and how many YEARS to make?

(1992-2007=15)

And what's the net on the (alleged) $430k?

(...)

Now spread that number over how many years?

(18)

NOW where are?

(...)

And where is their second film all this time later?

(...)

Like Vuorensola, American animator Nina Paley ignored traditional distribution methods and released her film, Sita Sings the Blues, a comic adaptation of the Hindu epic, The Ramayana, directly online earlier this year. She first created a blog, www.ninapaley.com, to develop a community of supporters, and then posted the film on another site, www.sitasingstheblues.com, for free. It was an instant success.

To date, Paley has made net profits of $55,000

$55k net but what was the budget?

($290,000)

And how long did it take to make?

(7+ years)

NOW where are we?

(...)

And where is her second film all this time later?

(...)





Relying on piracy, charity, and t-shirts for a business model is a siren song.

Have fun being digital pan-handlers/t-shirt salesmen!

And yes definitely give these kinds of things their own forum so they can be avoided that much easier for those of us who (despite disliking the weather at times) still think reality is a mighty fine place to live!

:bath:

 

[Chris Santucci]

Relying on piracy, charity, and t-shirts for a business model is a siren song.

Have fun being digital pan-handlers/t-shirt salesmen!

And yes definitely give these kinds of things their own forum so they can be avoided that much easier for those of us who (despite disliking the weather at times) still think reality is a mighty fine place to live!

Like the "no-budget" film fantasy, sounds like another fairy-tale where time seems to have no dollar value.

All that time and effort and begging and marketing, adds up to massive amounts of time which is time that could have been spent procuring name talent so a film would be salable without having to resort to selling shirts, and begging people to like your film, etc.

Funny how SO many filmmakers don't take into account all they ways they could spend their "free" time - writing/developing a mind-blowing script (go ahead, spend 3 years on it!) and/or raising money so they could hire name talent.

.

 

[Mark Harris]

But I think the time/payoff ratio is a bad argument. Every movie takes a long time to get made, time you will not get paid for. A friend of mine made a small film with Anthony Lapaglia. Took him 7 years to raise the money and get it made. Hell, we're rolling into year two on my feature. Spent the first year on the story and script. If I calculated what my time spent on this was worth, I would never raise enough to get it made.

Every indie film probably uses up about 100 times more sweat than you ever get paid back in money.

Likewise with the road of just "writing a mind-blowing script" and then "raising money so they hire name talent". That is every bit as much of a pipe dream. These things are not easy, and not certain to make a film succeed. As I'm sure you're aware, often the name talent and raising money are a catch-22.

You're going to spend the many years writing(which you will not get paid for) before you have the skills to write that mind-blowing script. Or maybe you invest in a really great film school like NYU or Columbia. Then, you're not only not getting paid for your time, but you are now in the hole.

Then, unless it's like your wife's parents who have the money, you will spend more years forming the relationships that even get you into a conversation with people who will give you the $1 mil. You won't get paid for that time either. Or running around pitching your script. You won't get paid for all the time you spend running to festivals to support your film.

I'm not arguing for these guys, but I think you guys are ignoring the reality of how hard this stuff is even doing it the "right" way.

 

[Chris Santucci]

But I think the time/payoff ratio is a bad argument. Every movie takes a long time to get made, time you will not get paid for. A friend of mine made a small film with Anthony Lapaglia. Took him 7 years to raise the money and get it made. Hell, we're rolling into year two on my feature. Spent the first year on the story and script. If I calculated what my time spent on this was worth, I would never raise enough to get it made.

All I'm talking about is a comparison between filmmakers who spend very little time (comparatively) in prep, developing a script, raising money, etc., AND the time they end up spending trying to convince people that they should see their film (or buy their t-shirts :cheesy.

I've lived this sh!t and I've seen people spend huge amounts of money (and time) on films that didn't even look good on paper. Then comes the hard work of trying to fly those lead balloons. I see ego after ego rushing into film production and then the aftermath of having a film that just isn't saleable (enough or at all).

How often are these "alternative" marketing scenarios a necessary evil because the film itself just isn't all that great? I don't know - maybe "very" often?!?!

Every indie film probably uses up about 100 times more sweat than you ever get paid back in money.

Uh huh. Which is why filmmakers need to consider what the heck they're getting into.

Likewise with the road of just "writing a mind-blowing script" and then "raising money so they hire name talent". That is every bit as much of a pipe dream. These things are not easy, and not certain to make a film succeed. As I'm sure you're aware, often the name talent and raising money are a catch-22.

You can spend the time and effort on one thing OR another. Over time, can you raise money and develop a very great script, and then hire a casting director? Yep! I've spoken with agents and I know you CAN just outright hire certain name actors if you have a script that doesn't suck and are willing to pay. I coordinated a $500K feature that had THREE Oscar winning actors in it. You'd be surprised what you can do with some money and a good sell.

.

 

[filmman]

Movie distribution has changed drastically in the last twenty years. The fact that there are a hundred thousand movies seeking distribution at once makes it impossible for an indie filmmaker to make any real money.

As far as I'm concerned the 80's model of indie filmmaking and film distribution doesn't work at all.

I think the worst problem indie filmmakers face today is lack of co-operation from other indie filmmakers. This is why I like this website; there are people here who want to help. I think just encouraging each other is a big step in helping indie filmmakers continue with their careers.

I have been to many film markets since the 1985, and the problem is that indie filmmakers with very few exceptions put themselves at the mercy of distributors and the whole distribution business. It's not the way to make money or even succeed as a filmmaker.

When an indie filmmaker gets "picked up" by a major, he or she ceases to be an indie filmmaker. In the great majority of cases their careers are over, because how many $50 million dollar movies is one filmmaker going to make?

An indie filmmaker who doesn't get "picked up" can go on to make twenty or more movies in their career. Up until now an indie filmmaker never made enough money to call it "success", but at least for those of us who just want to make movies, it's better than getting picked up (subjective).

So the fact that movie distribution has changed completely now is just great. There are so many ways to make money with our indie movies. All the ways are legitimate. The Internet does level the playing field.

In order for indie filmmakers to make real money on movies they must trust each other and help each other. The biggest problem I have seen with indie filmmakers in the international markets is that they act as ninjas trying to sell their own movies; there is no co-operation between them, and the only outcome of their efforts is maybe "get picked up."

People, we have to help each other. We need to form indie distribution companies and go to the international markets with at least ten movies per company. We need to finance our own marketing costs, and make these costs an integral part of the budgets.

 

[Barry_Green]

People have been making filmed productions and giving them away for free, for the last 60 years. It's called "television."

So yes there are ways this could be done, and even done profitably, but it's gonna take some creativity to make it a sustainable business model.

 

[ChipG]

TV example, American Idol was valued at $2.5 Billion in 2007, today it's worth over $3B in a recovering economy and it's FREE.

I have always liked the business model for tv more than movies for an indie with a budget of $50k-$250k. Sooo much better odds doing a tv show on spec than a movie.

 

[Chris Santucci]

Too bad TV is being displaced by internet.

It seems that "web series" is where it's at now (and in the future). I'm hearing some interesting stories about some prolific people making mucho dinero that way.

I wonder what the difference is between numbers of audience watching full length movies online as opposed to those watching shorter web series episodes.

I also question the future of cinema in general when people seem less and less able and less inclined to sit and watch a 90-120 minute film.

.

 

[MichaelP]

The TV shows aren't made for free so money is made through licensing to the program producer. There have been some successful video episodics on the Internet, but the more successful of them end up on... TV.

But even that Internet market is changing - most if it is ad supported (like network TV in the US) and those seem to be moving towards subscription models. I don't know how many different channels I can afford to subscribe to - there is only so much money to spread around in my home budget. The nickle and diming adds up quick on those monthly fees.

Michael

 

[arroway]

I don't think Nina Paley's goal was, necessarily, to make a hit movie that she could sell. I think she wanted to tell a particular story in a way that interested her. In a sense, the journey was its own reward.

Terrific. If you have a trust fund, bohemian sensibilities and no pressing need for a career doing what you love most, by all means, make movies for a small fortune and get an even smaller fortune back by embracing piracy and T-shirts. At 7 years a pop, you should be able to release at least three such commercial disasters during your prime creative years (although none of the usual examples have even made a 2nd).

But don't call it an "instant success" when someone only makes back 1/6th of what they spent, and don't say they've been "making money" when they've only done the exact opposite of that.

A solution to this inherent conflict might present itself one day, but it for damned sure isn't going to be based around some mythical "shirtless freeloader" demographic.

 

[Ted Spencer]

People have been making filmed productions and giving them away for free, for the last 60 years. It's called "television."

So yes there are ways this could be done, and even done profitably, but it's gonna take some creativity to make it a sustainable business model.

The TV model, especially the early one, is an interesting contrast to the internet distribution model that so many indie filmmakers (and other artists) are hoping will be their road to success.

Early TV consisted of a handful of channels, each with a small number of programs to choose from. Most TV watchers were familiar with almost all programming that was age-appropriate to them. Even now, with hundreds of channels, it's pretty easy to find shows you like, and not exactly rocket science to predict that viewership will be high for "24" and low for [fill in favorite/silliest Obscure Cable Show here]. But still...we're 'only' talking hundreds of channels. And *all* of them are supported by advertisers, public funding or grants. No pay, no play. Those are the club rules thanks, others need not apply.

But for every one of the hundreds of cable channels, there are...wait...give me just a sec here...ok, got it...46 bajillion internet 'channels' (sites). And that number increases by 10% approximately every time you exhale. And they all cost exactly squat to 'broadcast' as along as you already have a website host, which of course, millions and millions of people do. Or you could just stick your programming on something like YouTube for free (to you anyway - advertisers are picking up your tab). Speaking of which, while lots of YouTube type things have gone 'viral' big-time, I bet if you looked at the numbers there, you would probably need more zeroes after the decimal point to express the percentage of them that did than this site allows in one post. And hardly any of those ever make a cent for their creators.

So now we've got some unimaginably, stupendously, humongously (somebody stop me here) HUGE number of "shows" and no freakin' way for any meaningful number of potential audience members to find any particular one of them. As such, putting content up this way quite likely represents the single greatest collective act of pissing in the wind in the history of humankind. It makes sending a message in bottle look like a rock-solid, guaranteed success.

So where does it all leave us? Right where we started:

#1: Product Quality (make a *great* film)
#2: Advertising (spend money to get the word out. Lots of it)
#3: Rinse, repeat

Same as it ever was, no matter where you hang your hat...

 

[filmman]

Article: the American Film Market, an annual event where filmmakers and studio executives converge to sign production and distribution deals.

The lead article tries to create some excitement for indie filmmakers whose movies fall outside the Hollywood mainstream; but there are some misconceptions in the article too, such as this quote.

The AFM is where small distributors (w/o upfront money for indie filmmakers) sell small (w/o stars) movies to foreign territorial buyers (sub-distributors from 150 countries).

Of course, all kinds of people go to the AFM; but studio executives don't go there anymore. They have already dumped all their bombs on the DVD market and the home video market long ago.

Article: Soon, the middleman could be a thing of the past. And it may only be a matter of time before movie theatres - popcorn and all - are on the way out, too.

Nobody can predict the future. Last year was the biggest box office year.

My advice to indie filmmakers (I follow this advice myself) is to keep on making movies and hold on to the rights (do not give away your exclusive rights ... especially for peanuts ... unless you need peanuts to stay alive; I'm not heartless.LOL)

If you're going to spend real money (money that you cannot replace if push comes to shove), make sure you have a distribution contract with a distributor before you roll cameras. I know, if you have such a contract or can get one you won't be saying it here; but that's ok, just make sure you have one.

If you're looking to Internet distribution (CreateSpace works for me), then shoot your feature films as close to zero as humanly possible. My advice on shooting no-budget movies (movies you don't write the budget for because you can't afford to buy more ink for your laser printer), is shoot with a digital camera without all the fancy lens adapters (forget shallow focus; Orson Wells hated it and shoot it yourself (with focus set to auto; you can't afford a focus puller).

Then every penny you make is profit. And someday, believe me, you're going to be offered millions for your movies. Ok, don't believe me -- what are your choices? You want to hold your breath for "Bohemian freeloaders" (Arroway coined this term to pay $1.99 to watch your movie? I have my feature on Amazon.com VOD for a month now. I don't think anybody has paid $1.99 to watch it yet.LOL

It's a long way to Tipperary.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

I AGREE

Could Das Boot have been shot in a garage?