Is Self Distribution possible?

All I read in this thread and elsewhere has been said -- and more importantly comes from the experience of filmmakers who lived it. But it doesn't help us today. BECAUSE distribution is changing as we speak. The curve is accelerating and nothing makes sense anymore; all advice is good, but what's the use: no one can use it to earn money. Still sharing is good. At least we can soften the blows and take the fall rolling instead of crashing and burning.

The main obstacle is human nature; it's us. We all want the same thing: make a movie, get rich, get recognition and move on to bigger films and more success -- and finally become recognized by the whole world (egomania takes over :-)

But we don't trust each other and find ourselves at odds (be practical, find a niche, etc.) We drive ourselves in all directions and pull in different directions.

Over the last 40 years that I've been fortunate to work for successful companies making movies and releasing them theatrical. And I've also been unfortunate to work for unsuccessful company of individuals (they never became companies) who fell apart because of personal greed and egotism. It's human nature.

I've called for independent filmmakers coming together to form distribution companies to serve independent filmmakers, but nothing has happened. I've been trying for 20 years. I guess I'm the eternal optimist :-) Oh, I've gotten a few emails from people, but it all fizzles out. I hope that this will change someday, but who knows.

The problem is human nature. It's everyone for himself. However, filmmaking cannot become a business if filmmakers don't control distribution.

I saw a documentary about the South African diamond mine company deBeers. They owned and still own the biggest diamond mines in the world, but they didn't become successful until they controlled distribution.

And that was diamonds!

If all filmmakers want is to become recognized and get picked up by a major distributor, the independent distribution company for indie filmmakers idea will never work.
 
raymondluo said:
This is strange because Tiffany Shlain(The Tribe) mentioned that when her film was on the net for free her dvd sales jumped. Maybe it was the hype of the moment since it was during her festival run.
Click to expand...

What seems to happen for me is when people hear about the book (usually through me, LOL) they go to the site and see the film, then buy the book but not the film. Which I actually make more on the books than the DVDs via an Amazon sale anyway so that works out swell for me. Keep in mind we're still not talking major money but that extra cash has come in handy a few times to pay bills and such. Also, by this being on Vimeo I can embed it into myspace comments.

-Nate
 
Filmman (Vic)... Soo so true. Your words have the honest ring of authentic experience and observation. You and I share so many of the same thoughts... and I too don't quite know the answer. Most filmmakers on these screens and others never make a dime. That's OK...if that is not the main goal. If recognition and getting the movie seen at all costs is the goal, then the festival route is for you. In the back of my mind I'm thinking this sure smacks of Hobbiest / Artist, not business-person. For me, recognition is not my primary goal... I wanna make some money. From what I'm hearing and from my reading of the 30 some books on distribution on my shelf... I'm not sure it's possible with low budget movie making. Taormina (Adam) says absolutely not possible...and he makes many good points to support that. Oh, there will be the occassional "lucky" one...but that ain't a business plan.
How to control your distribution is a key, as you said. Indeed, that's what originally built the studios. Remember all the Fox theatres in every town? What a challenging concept!!!
 
FrankC said:
I wanna make some money. From what I'm hearing and from my reading of the 30 some books on distribution on my shelf... I'm not sure it's possible with low budget movie making. Taormina (Adam) says absolutely not possible...and he makes many good points to support that. Oh, there will be the occassional "lucky" one...but that ain't a business plan.
Click to expand...
Check out Brain Damage Films I doubt these guys ever spend over $10,000 (if that) on a film and they are profitable and have been in business for quite some time now. On top of that they actually make it into video stores. They survive on nothing but low budget horror, gore and exploitation films of various quality. Strange Things Happen At Sundown (a vampire gangster flick) seems to be their big hit.

I have to admit the trailer includes a vampires who walks around in the day. Vampires who daywalk without good reason annoy me but the concept of the movie is interesting. My point is, it is possible to make money. But then again to piggy back on what Vic said, they control their distribution. Another thing is the amount of product they have.

-Nate
 
Good Points Nate ( BTW...Love your stuff!). This is also what Tanya York says in her book. About the only genre she knows that makes any money at the low end is the Horror / Action movies. I can appreciate that and that the guys at Brain Damage Films have found a formula. Both they and York seem to know their demographic group of buyers (17-25 year old males). The other side of that coin is if I want to make something other than a horror movie... I'm dead (forgive the pun). I think what the thought is, then it had better be dang good, great script, with great production values, good acting, great sound, all the deliverables, maybe a name actor, ... and then great luck with right time at right place. Actually I find that reasonable. Most low budget independent product I see is attrociously horrible stuff. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I know there is a formula out there somewhere.... or maybe I just mentioned it above LOL !!!
 
All you have to do is make something enough people want to see that they'll give you money to see it. A market that's all but ignored at the low end is the kids/family market. You know how much money is there? A good self promoted kid's thing can make a ton of money. Christian/religious movies also do well.

-Nate
 
FrankC said:
Well Jonathan... You're going down Adam Curtado's road. Get you movie "seen" (it's not about the money there)...and maybe someone will give you a job. That's cool... But I was talking about making a filmmaking "business". Film Festivals would not be part of that equation. Festivals are nice parties, but have very little relevance to making any money. You won't get a distribution deal out of a festival... Unless you are in festivals where Acquisition Executive are in attendance... and that's only about 5 or 6 festivals. So Jonathan, I think you have to make up your mind... Do you want to be the next great director, like Nathyn said "You are the product". Or do you want to figure out how to make a business out of this. So far most people have said to me that it's not possible to make a sustainable business out of low-budget movie making. They could all be very correct...But I'm determined to find a way. And BTW, that TV C-list actor won't get a distribution deal for anyone either. If the Distrib hasn't ever heard of them, it won't matter.
Click to expand...

Well first off, I don't agree about festivals, I think if you get a horror film into notable horror film festivals, it will absolutely help your chances of distribution, if you promote the film properly.

And yes, I do want to be the next great director, I don't want to make a business out of it. I'm not interested in low budget filmmaking specifically, I'd rather be doing high budget filmmaking ;) But low budget is what I have. Also, C-list? No way dude, I just got C-listers for my short film, if I shot a feature it'd be someone everyone knew, it's not impossible by any means. I'm talking someone who has been in major projects, a big TV show star from the past, etc. It's very possible. And that does help you get distribution.

I must be honest I don't understand what people are talking about when they say $10,000 indie feature films. This makes no sense to me. That is pocket change, I would go through that every day (at least) even on an indie project. My short was $9,000 and we saved money everywhere. We just had Subway for lunch one day, the other day a restaurant gave us a break because we were shooting there, and we got that whole restaurant for $500 for the day, actors were paid $100 each, union minimum on that type of project, I owned all of the equipment besides the lens adapter and lenses we used, so we saved money there as well, we had my co-producer helping for basically nothing, she also did craft services and makeup, so we had no official makeup artist, and we had only one grip and one electric, the gaffer, everyone was paid less than their usual day rates I would say, and music was done on the cheap as well (even though it was original), and yet still it was nearly $10,000. It was VERY cheaply made, it looks fantastic but it's only 9:36 and it was about $1,000 per minute. My best music video was $10,000, about $3,200 per minute. So I don't understand how you can make a feature film for $10,000, it just doesn't compute, unless you are really doing it completely amateurish and have a crew of you and two buddies, that's it, and free "actors" from the local college, all free locations, director edits himself, does sound himself, etc. I mean I guess I can see how it might be able to be done but $10,000 is petty cash, it's literally nothing whatsoever, a good Hollywood after party is like $60,000. For me, I put TONS of time and effort into keeping costs down on all of my projects, and I know how difficult it is to do that, and how fast money adds up, so it's not like I was throwing money around. At every step I found ways to cut costs, and each of these projects would have cost any other professional company twice as much money, but I was able to put a lot more passion and sweat into them and get things for cheaper. We got massive equipment discounts on the $10K music video, about $4,800 in equipment for $1,600, it was remarkable, mainly because my UPM and my DP had a good relationship with the rental company, and both of them worked for so little compared to what they are used to, just because they are awesome guys who wanted to help. So I've ALWAYS done the whole use your connections thing, ask for favors, get discounts, etc., and that's STILL extremely expensive.

I would like to see what a $10,000 feature looks like because I don't think you can do much more than two guys sitting in a room talking for that. Even then, good post sound work and editing should still cost more than that, haha.
 
Last edited:
It's like my doctor said to me when I told him I didn't take the prescribed medications, "Why do you want to suffer?"
 
I hear what you're saying Jonathan... But I have indeed made more than 15 short movies, all with budgets under a few thousand...and many of them have won Best Picture awards at various film fests. I just finished a full length feature (as DP) for another Producer / Director, and our out-of-pocket cash costs were well under $10K. The picture is in editing right now, but it looks gorgeous...Shot on the EX1.
Now to balance your point out:
1. My production company and I do own all the equipment. Couldn't be done any other way for sure.
2. Nobody got paid. All deferred. Had pro actors. No names, but pros.
3. The Final Cut Pro editing will be done in my shop by my people who are also on deferred shares. Certainly few people could do it this way.
4. Most locations we free. Sets and many interiors were supplied by my studio. Certainly few people could do it this.
Most of the money actually went for food and supplies. Now we did have other problems, but that was more in faulty producer planning than anything (I'll save that for another thread).
This movie will be marketed to a very specific Urban Family / Christian market and already has received wide interest in that community. Therefore, I think it has a good chance to make some money...and pay us all back!
I think it will be as good as any Movie-of-the-Week.... For under $10,000.
Now to be fair, if we were to assign values to all the deferred pay, we'd have a budget of around $250,000. So I guess it's how one wants to define the terms.
But I do think it can be done...as was the subject of another recent thread here. It certainly does require a greater level of creativity, but as Taormina (Adam) pointed out, it has a production nature that's very punishing since everyone has to wear many many hats and be great at multi-tasking.
PS... If I was younger, I'd be on the path you're marching on...Best of Luck!!!!
 
Nathyn said:
All you have to do is make something enough people want to see that they'll give you money to see it. A market that's all but ignored at the low end is the kids/family market. You know how much money is there? A good self promoted kid's thing can make a ton of money. Christian/religious movies also do well.

-Nate
Click to expand...
Nathyn... You've hit the nail on the head! Thank you. Last year I had the opportunity to attend the Home Media Expo in Las Vegas. ( Home Media is a trade magazine to the video rental industry). The Expo brought in all the major and minor distributors to mingle with all the Video Rental people...and a contingent of "content providers" (filmmakers) such as myself. I was able to speak with about 30 or 40 distributors, and always popped one last question to them... "If you could have a movie this week that would make your week, what would you be looking for that you could sell right now?" What you said is what they said. "We need more family friendly movies. Got plenty of horror for guy teens, but we don't have much of movies along the Disney-esq line" That was a big Wow for me? Here's the rub. That takes more talent to make!!! That will be a separater for many indy filmmakers. To be blunt, there are not that many indy filmmakers that are talented. So Nate, you may be on to something here. There seems to be a bit of a demand for Family product.
Oh and one more surprise. About 30% said "Also, we could use some more westerns". What?... they've been out of favor for decades. They came back with, "That's exactly why we could use a few". So let's see...What if we combine genres... a Family Western. I think that's "Little House on the Praire" and maybe even "The Waltons". Amazing how things cycle around.
 
FrankC said:
Oh and one more surprise. About 30% said "Also, we could use some more westerns". What?... they've been out of favor for decades. They came back with, "That's exactly why we could use a few". So let's see...What if we combine genres... a Family Western. I think that's "Little House on the Praire" and maybe even "The Waltons". Amazing how things cycle around.
Click to expand...

Remember martial arts movies were gone for a good while before they became popular again in America. There was a time Steven Seagal was the only person doing big screen martial arts. Van Damme wasn't even big anymore. Now martial arts is in full swing.

JonathanLB said:
I would like to see what a $10,000 feature looks like because I don't think you can do much more than two guys sitting in a room talking for that. Even then, good post sound work and editing should still cost more than that, haha.
Click to expand...

Dude, you haven't seen El Mariachi? That was shot for $7000. And while the studio did do color correction and punch up the sound, for the most part the thing didn't look all that different.

I'm doing a film now that I believed would take about $50,000 and after praying about it I read in the Bible "To those who use well what they are given, even more will be given, and they will have an abundance. But from those who are unfaithful, even what little they have will be taken away." This is the mentality I make films with.

My budget dramatically decreased. Point one, I was going to pay a camera person to use our equipment and NOT SHOOT HD. A friend of mine urged me to see if the camera person would have equipment themselves saying "It doesn't hurt to ask". I put the call out there and got offers from people with HVX200s, Sonys, and even a guy who got a RED and simply wanted to test it out. We ended up with a DP with the Canon A1 (which is what we wanted to shoot on). Now we're shooting HD for the price we were going to shoot SD. The DP has everything including greenscreens, microphones and lights.

I was thinking of paying $150 for location. A small fee but in Chicago many would work with it for eight hours of shooting. We were introduced to a single location that would act as many. I revamped the script to fit the location and the story doesn't change. In fact the location adds to the script and has props already in it. The other locations are free. I think we will have to pay for the cemetery if this other location doesn't have a morgue.

The next thing is paying the actors and food. I can actually afford this. So my $50,000 budget has dropped considerably. Main actors are getting paid $75 a day. The "names" are getting their rate or an agreed rate. We even landed a Playboy model to play a character's GF for one scene. I didn't even know she had done Playboy. She was around and looked the part and I just asked her. I told her what she needed to do. She Googled the project and said okay.

One of our actresses may drop out because it's the busy season for her, but her understudy is a seven year highly trained martial artist. Basically this has all come together and with the right direction, editing and effects (all done in house with knowledge gained from my other films) we can make something that looks like it's big budget (at least bigger than $10,000). If it gets in video stores here in America I have some contacts who can help me advertise it myself (to an extent and depending on the money I make for the sale). So lack of money makes you have to think about things in a different way.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
Thank you. The only thing I'm looking at now is buying a new computer and upgrading my FCP studio for native HDV editing. But look at this, had I got the Canon A1 myself, I would've wanted the new JVC (especially after seeing what Philip Bloom did with it).

So after we shoot Divinity my next camera purchase will probably be the JVC HM100. My first JVC camera. I'm planning on that lasting for awhile (think atleast 4 - 5 years or more). This also depends on how the technology takes off and if anyone else decides to make a camera with an NLE in mind. The image looks great and the Quicktime to SD card idea is an awesome idea. I could import all the files on a harddrive via my G4 Powerbook and then hook the hard drive up to the intell iMac.

I won't need to buy a new laptop for a nice while (unless I have money to spare for a Mac Book pro). My G4 is a 600 so was virtually useless for anything other than DV editing, until the coming of solid state cameras now I can use it to store files to a drive if needed. It's main purpose is for my writing. I may see if I can find someone with a Firestore and try this with the Divinity footage. I will probably invest in an HV30 for editing and B-roll.

-Nate
 
Hate to take this thread off in a different direction, but I should respond to ya Nate. I have a Sony EX1...and nothing, I mean nothing, in the sub-$10k price range compares to it. By far your best bang for the buck. I had considered the JVC HM-100 for a special project (considering the $3k price), but the reviews I've been reading on it have just trashed that camera...many saying it is way over-priced for what you get in old technology. Plus JVC has not been one of my favorite companies in quality products or customer service. And indeed, we are using the Canon HV-30 for a B and/or C camera. Great little camera with a superb picture for what it is ($600). We'll use it for those quick cut-away shots where we can't or don't want to put the EX1 in...like outside a car on monopod boom near the tire, etc. I'd rather loose a $600 camera than a $7,000 camera!! And if the shot is only a second or two long, you don't notice the picture is a bit inferior to the bigger camera.
But the serious (under $10K) indy movie rig is the Sony EX1 and a 35mm adapter. Phillip Bloom has shots with that combo that will defy you to not say it wasn't shot in 35mm or at least Super 16.
 
But that's great (for me). By the time I want to buy the camera it will have dropped in price. My issue is the ease of use. If I can pull clips into FCP with no rendering, end the use of tape and simply move on from there that's worth a lot for me. By the time I buy I'm betting the camera will see significant price drops. For the image Bloom got with the HM100 got I'm on it if I can pull that off. Did you see those greens, blues and reds. That stuff was jumping off the screen. Crazy thick saturation on that thing with just the ungraded footage.

I believe I can match that to the Canon footage significantly enough. And that mirror mode is cool. Plus we do a lot of run and gun shooting sometimes so being able to make the camera into a handy cam sized thing is very sweet. Also I can invest in a light weight tripod and a basic tripod for the HV30. Honestly I did see an HV30 with an adapter that had a flip mode. Would've been tempting had I had the cash but I'm going to wait.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest with you guys, because you've been honest here :-) Some of you more than honest. LOL

The first time I went to the foreign market (AFM 1985) I knew this was it for indie filmmakers. I always wanted to stay an indie filmmaker, because I like to make my own movies. I don't want to work "in the industry." If I wanted to work, I'd work in a factory or become a machinist. I'd work 8 hours and the rest of the day was mine. I never wanted that. I want to be an artist 24 hours a day -- which I am. I've made my living as a filmmaker for 40 years -- never had to do anything else.

In the foreign market, if you have a feature that is in focus and has one recognizable actor or actress, I can make at least $50,000 with it in one market.

With the same movie, in the domestic market, there is only the home video. Maybe some distributor will pay $10,000 for it. Most likely, no one will advance any money. After the film has been sold (gone), a filmmaker may see Zero money.

So if a filmmaker makes a movie for $5000 that is in focus and with a recognizable actor or actress in it, the potential is for a $5000 profit. If it takes one year to finish the movie and find the distributor (it's more like 3 years for most filmmakers), then a filmmaker is making $1,500 to $5000 for working one year.

In the foreign market, that same movie will bring in at least $50,000.

What if the film is more than in focus and has more than just one recognizable actor or actress? The answer is: there are a myriad of factors if one wishes to make more than $50,000.

But, the point is there is no way anybody can succeed in the domestic market as an indie filmmaker.

Now, there are exceptions, but I'm not talking about exceptions.

Yes, if you can get Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise in your movie, (let's say you know them personally and they will do it), ok, so the movie will cost $100,000,000 and marketing will cost $75,000,000. If -- IF -- the film is a hit, MAYBE you'll get some more money.

But you're right, you will become a household name as a filmmaker, and MAYBE you will be able to cash in on that later on your NEXT film.

No, please, give me the foreign market.... LOL
 
That's my game plan. Sale to the foreign buyers at AFM and keep the domestic rights. My film will be much more than "in focus" lol. Who knows how much money it makes but I can sale it from my website here and get four wall a few places in the city.

-Nate
 
to weigh in on the subject. I'm in the process of producing a film for a DP friend of mine and I'm keeping the budget around 50K or less. With what I can make of it (I'm a member of Stacy Parks site as well) in a market where there is a glut of product it is a buyers market. My biggest problem is that I can't ask my freelance friends (I'm a freelance soundmixer) to work for free or 'defered' (which is latin for FREE). The only defered project I worked on was in 1996 it was sold and I have yet to be paid a dime. In fact I bought a copy at CD exchange for half price a few years back. To get the kind of quality project I want I have to have good people and they cost. Yes they will work for a reduced rate but I can't expect a guy who worked 2 seasons on Friday Night Lights to work 15 days 12 to 14 hrs a day for $50 a day. Sure I could get a noob with a HDX200 to do it but I've seen the end result and it ain't pretty. Sure it's just a Zombie flick but if I put my name on it I want a quality Zombie movie.

I feel if you make a quality movie keep the budget under 50k perferably 30k carve out self distrub rights for yourself and with US and foreign right sales make the money back. This is a straight to DVD film Maybe I'm being too optimistic but I'm not trying to make a living off this movie. I do that in commercials and television. But I can hopefully make another one.

We've shot the first 12 pages to produce a trailer ( http://www.killingfieldsmovie.com ) Which created buzz and spured contact from a distributor that was intrested in the film (or at least seeing a screener) which gave us the reason to make it.
JM2C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top