Possibly my last post anywhere...

[jls4]

Sadly, there have been a few famous instances where an exceptionally talented player ultimately failed due to a critical lack of one or more of the other necessary skills. ... Shyamalan may be on a similarly enigmatic path, but at least we can point to his series of increasingly inferior films to explain it, despite his considerable skill, talent, and an (IMHO) *outstanding* first movie, "Sixth Sense".

Something to knock your noodle - what defines success anyway or even true talent for that matter. After all, there are many directors who I love like Christopher Columbus (Harry Potter 1&2, Mrs. Doubtfire, Nine Months, and Rent) and Chris Sanders (Lilo and Stich, Mulan) who no one seems to even mention or think about.

Couldn't success and Talent like good or bad be subjective? Heck one could wish only to be a bum and work towards that.

 

[jls4]

I think a lot of times people get confused by what "hollywood" is all about. Hollywood is about making money. Give them a film that people will pay money to see, and they'll gladly buy it from you. And frankly, as far as they're concerned, that's pretty much all that matters: is there an audience? Will they sell tickets, and DVDs? If so, it's a valuable property that they'll buy. If not, then (from their perspective) WHO CARES whether it's a visionary director or a thought-provoking story or it was done on less than $5,000 or ... ANYTHING else? Who cares? They certainly don't. "Will an audience pay to see it?" That's the one end-all and be-all of the decision-making process, on their end.

LOL Amen.

 

[ChipG]

This is an email from a childhood friend who is a producer, he's had 3 feature films in theaters (major releases) and 3 or 4 more that were made for the dvd market / sold to Weinstein and other distributors. The reason why I'm gong to post this is I want you guys to read from someone with a strong hold in Hollywood how tough things are right now.


"indie films in my little world

To give you an idea how tough things are:

I have a $5m project with Kevin Spacey, Steve Zahn, and Sam Rockwell. Written by an award winning, studio level, produced screen writer. Couldn't get the money put together for it. I let WMA lead the charge on that. I had the money to do the 5m version 18 mos ago. Spacey and WMA wanted to do it for 10m. I said go for it. I owned rights and partnered with Spacey and his team. They put WMA in charge of financing and they not only couldn't get 10m. They also could not find 5m in the end. So, Spacey left WMA, WMA sold (gave) itself to END. And now we're at square one. (Oh, and my original investor lost his risk capital with the stock market crash earlier this year.)

Reason I bore you with the story is: 2x Oscar Winner Kevin Spacey, along with a great ensemble, was still tough to put the movie together. I even had {EDIT} and {EDIT} ready to buy N American rights. But we found out foreign numbers wouldn't work.

Yes..Brutal..and lame business. Bunch of spineless cocksuckers at every turn. I have an original idea I am developing that I am excited about. Studio level RomCom/Ensemble. Also want to make another run at Spacey movie when climate improves."




This is how hard it is to get things done in hollywood today even with big names and WMA, (Endeavor now) pushng the project to happen. When who ever says hollywood isn't trying to keep people out I think he is referring to direct to dvd distribution, I have relatives who have run the 3 largest studios in the world, between them they have green lit and developed about every hollywood blockbuster in the last 10 years so I get to see things from both sides, the studios are squeezing out indies because they want to develop their projects in house with the best people in the world. BTW the above $10M Spacey movie was not for theatrical release. Studios aren't going to pass on a $200M movie and buy a $1M indie movie they will go ahead with their $200M project and send the $1M movie to dvd home video if it is good. Just no way in todays market a $1M movie will have enough production value to pay for P&A to make it profitable enough for a studio to waste their time with a theatrical release (please don't bring up Blair Whitch, those times are over in todays market). Home dvd dist is different and it is what you guys should be thinking about instead of how my camera will look on the big screen but even the home dvd market has declined a lot and will continue to while B.O. will continue to grow.

I'm not trying to discourage you guys or drop names here but as a business and not as an art form or fun factor there is a reason why I have not produced an indie feature. I'm able to break into other markets that I have no connections to much easier. Who would have thought

I think if your smart about the market you can eliminate your risk from .001% to 1% if you have an amazing story with good production value. You'll be up against 100,000 other indies who all think they are the best there is. Ego's destroy indies faster than anything, crap = good stuff to them.

Spend 6 months researching all the direct to dvd distribution companies before you write a script, know they market, find out what deals they have made with other past indies, their budgets etc. Do not write a movie like the 50 other titles they have in their catalog, DON'T DO IT, they will throw it in the trash, their goal is the same as a studio, it's not to have the best movie it's to have to most profitable return on their investment = a marketeble film.

 

[Martay]

I'm talking about you delivering a finished feature film to them. That's what they want to buy.

At that point it has nothing to do with their own tastes. They screen it in front of a test audience -- if the audience loves it, they buy it. If the audience hates it, they pass.

Well, I was speaking in general about film executives and there is a difference between Development and Acquistitions...you're right.

However, when are they screening these in front of audiences?

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

Again, though, the ones they even decide to take that far are still subject to the conditions I originally pointed out. Including their own taste.

If taste wasn't a component, then why wouldn't everyone put out the same movies?

I'm just saying that talented filmmaking isn't the end all be all when "they" are choosing films to acquire.

That, on the other hand, is exactly what I'm talking about. Show them that there's an audience, and they'll take over from there. If you can't demonstrate an audience, then the risk goes up enormously -- and down goes your potential chances of making a deal.

You got me. True enough. Proving an audience is definitely a must.

But again, I guess I'm just illustrating a point about 'talent' sometimes not being a factor in success related to the point of being "discovered".

-M

 

[jls4]

Great post Chip. Thanks for sharing.

I'm mainly concerned at Direct to DVD anyway. I gave up on Box Office for small projects because of some of the reasons you mentioned. But what I was originally told was the marketing side. Basically movies need $15 to $25 Million in marketing to go to the theater and many times for a small movie that's too much risk. But you might get a $500K to $2M deal for DVD.

My sights for my current project have been set on DVD. I think I have a good project, but I don't know if anyone would add $15M just so I can see it on the big screen.

 

[jls4]

But again, I guess I'm just illustrating a point about 'talent' sometimes not being a factor in success related to the point of being "discovered".

But maybe that's where the "talent" lies. In finding an audience. I mean how can you say the makes of "Blair Witch" aren't talented when they made a $200M dollar movie? And maybe Ted M. Green made a good oscar winner that cost $1M and made $500K.

 

[Martay]

This is an email from a childhood friend who is a producer, he's had 3 feature films in theaters (major releases) and 3 or 4 more that were made for the dvd market / sold to Weinstein and other distributors. The reason why I'm gong to post this is I want you guys to read from someone with a strong hold in Hollywood how tough things are right now.

Great illustration Chip...I have a friend in L.A. who's company was able to producer 2 movies last year....after 5 years of nothing (with talent attached out the wazoo) so I definitely know that it isn't a picnic for anyone.

Which is why I always stress to my friends here in ATL that I'm associated with to keep their heads up. Even though we're making micro-budgeted movies, at least we're making them.

I try to keep people from fixating on theatrical as well. I know that the only real shot we have on our projects is some decent DVD release. So we work toward that end.

-M

 

[Martay]

But maybe that's where the "talent" lies. In finding an audience. I mean how can you say the makes of "Blair Witch" aren't talented when they made a $200M dollar movie? And maybe Ted M. Green made a good oscar winner that cost $1M and made $500K.

I think you've got a point there...there does seem to be an ART to marketing and promotions.

Hope we've harnessed enough 'talent' in that department for my latest project, but I guess we'll see

-M

 

[ChipG]

Great illustration Chip...
-M

Thanks, you should see my inbox, full of similar emails all from well known producers / directors / studio people.

 

[Ted Spencer]

This is how hard it is to get things done in hollywood today even with big names and WMA, (Endeavor now) pushng the project to happen.

[much deleted from original post]

That's a disappointing story, for sure. On the other hand...

Who here hasn't seen lots of movies that were similarly "pedigreed" that weren't very good (in each of our respective opinions), weren't well received critically, and lost plenty of money? I have - lots of 'em. I like Kevin Spacey *a lot* as an actor, but just taking him as a case in point since he's already in the discussion, "Beyond The Sea", a pet project of his, *did* get made, for $24 million. I saw it. I thought it was ok, but not much better than that. Evidently the world pretty much agreed (at best), since it made under $7 million theatrically and earned a relatively weak 42% on rottentomatoes.com's "tomatometer".

Similarly, the potential movie in your friend's email *might* be a great one, or *it might not*. It's impossible to tell. What if it had gotten made and tanked? Who wins there? Not to be piling on Spacey, who again, I greatly admire. Many many other projects with great people attached have similar outcomes. No one knows *for sure* what will succeed until it does...or doesn't. So the guys that put up the money have to assess the risk as well as they can, and there are very few filmmaking teams that are virtually sure to succeed - Harry Potter's is one, and there are only a handful of others to speak of.

It's very understandable to find oneself muttering under one's breath about the impeccably pedigreed film that can't get made, but how would you feel if you were the guy who greenlit "Gigli" for $54M (and then grossed $7M)? What if it hadn't been made, and you were on Affleck and Lopez's team? Wouldn't you feel that was an injustice too? I bet most people would have. But it's hard now to argue now that that film, as it stood, should have been made, big stars attached or not...

I watch a lot of movies, and a big part of the reason is to try to get the best handle I possibly can on what makes movies good/successful and what makes them bad/unsuccessful. So I force myself to watch a lot of bad movies (although sometimes I have to take a break and pull an old fave out of my collection for a breath of fresh air). It's really fascinating after a while, and the inescapable conclusion I've come to is that an awful lot of very mediocre movies get made, some of which are reviewed better than they should be (IMO) - there seems to be a bit of charity where low-budget film reviews are concerned - and the reverse for big-budget - reviewers seem to insist on being absolutely wowed by those. But bad movies all too often can be busted quite simply - for *just not getting the fundamentals right* (and IMO, 9 out of 10 times it's the story/script). Good ones, almost always do. Sure there are exceptions (I don't understand why the "Pirates Of The Carribbean" films absolutely print money, for example, and I can't for the life of me imagine why "Slumdog Millionaire" was dropped by Warners). But really great films that tank at the box office? Rare. Real crap that makes hundreds of millions? Ditto. If anyone disagrees (and I'm sure some will) I'd love to see a list of the films in question if it contains more than a tiny number in any given year.

But my point is that stories about this or that movie with x number of impressive people attached not getting financed do not constitute proof for me that "Hollywood blows it again" or whatever. I've seen too many bad movies with big names to go along with that idea.

My $.02

 

[jls4]

...I don't understand why the "Pirates Of The Carribbean" films absolutely print money, for example, and I can't for the life of me imagine why "Slumdog Millionaire" was dropped by Warners). But really great films that tank at the box office? Rare. Real crap that makes hundreds of millions? Ditto. If anyone disagrees (and I'm sure some will) I'd love to see a list of the films in question if it contains more than a tiny number in any given year.

Oooooooooo! Ammo! Awesome LOL

Truly I understand your point Ted. Many times great films are not seen as great. My wife who has studied a little television/movie history once told me that in the beginning years of television when very few people could afford it (usually the rich) the TV shows were much more sophisticated. When Television went mainstream, the TV shows were dumbed down because the average person couldn't keep up. If this is true or not, only history knows. But it makes my point.

If you study the top grossing movies of all time
Titanic, Batman, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Harry Potter Films and Star Wars Films - you see one common thread. - Fantasy. People long to escape. They don't long to be put back into the everyday drama of life. When you look at a Slumdog or Doubt (which I haven't seen, but have heard is excellent) they force you back into harsh realities that many time people go to the movies to escape from.

During the depression Hollywood didn't take a major hit. Heck even last year as the stock market crashed, news achors were saying that projections for Drug and Alcohol Stocks were expected to rise. People escape when they are hurting, they only want to deal with someone else's problems when they themselves are in good standing IMO.

Unfortunately, people are always hurting: Sexism, Ageism, Racism, Poverty, Dispair, Depression, list goes on. Heck over 50% of Americans are medicated now everytime you turn on the TV you see a new "can't sleep" or "depression" pill.

Movies are subtle drugs and people want to fly, they don't want to be grounded. IMHO

 

[ChipG]

Ted,

Your justifications are fine for dvxuser but out in the real indie world this is how tough things are right now in today's indie market, I'm not basing this on one story but a whole inbox full of similar stories all from proven names of big, producers / directors / studio execs / agents. Todays real world not hypothetical "common sense" examples.

I'm not sure why you guys are still talking about $100m+ hollywood blockbuster movies in this thread. It's not the market for $100k indies (but yes, they can be fun to dream about).

If indies want to increase their odds they can't live in the past my man.

I do hope a few of you guys got something out of my post that will inspire you to be smarter / more knowledgeable than the other indies. You gotta know the business / markets more today than ever before.
Ok, I put my .02 cents in and I am done with this thread and non real world indie debates. Until the next thread, later

 

[Zak Forsman]

The assertion that in the real world there is just this singular truth for everyone is a little too narrow for me. I've been developing an alternative platform. Chip is right that things are tough for the people who flood his inbox as they are in a fixed position regarding how they believe things need to be done. they are not willing to adapt (not yet, anyway) to the rapidly changing models of content curation and distribution methods. Much has been said about how bad most independent films are. Truth is, even the best are not being picked up or are being given terrible offers that the filmmakers flat out turn down. This is part of the old model. A broken model that cannot sustain a filmmaker with or without names in their cast. Many are turning toward a Hybrid DIY approach and there is something to be said for this strategy. There is a myth out there that all you have to do is make a great film, screen it at a major festival, and use your distribution advance to pay your investors. Well, that scenario was rarely the case. Today's advances from Summit, Magnolia, IFC, Lion's Gate, etc average in the ball park of $0-$15,000. a fairly useless amount.

if you learn the markets as Chip suggested and apply that knowledge and hard work, you can do it yourself so-to-speak. It's not a fluke, or luck. it's persistence. take a look at Lance Weiler. His first film The Last Broadcast has made $4.5million since 1998 thru DIY theatrical screenings, DVD sales, merch, and licensing to Cable, VOD and foreign territories. His follow-up, Head Trauma, has made him $500k since 2005, most recently he's licensed it to Showtime, himself. If you are a low budget filmmaker working without names, there is a sustainable model out there for you, but it means learning a whole new skillset for post-post-production (aka distribution). A friend of mine, Zeke Zelker, has a film called In Search Of that grosses $20,000 and nets him $10,000 at each theatrical screening event he sets up for it. That's a single run at a single theater. Do that in 100 theaters across the country and you've made your first million. Again, this if for the low-budget filmmaker. These are films with no names, but with a madman at the wheel pushing it forward every day. If you are not interested in transitioning into a Hollywood career, as i am not, this could be your path. But you must be proactive and willing to carve it out. No one is going to hand it to you, especially if your film sucks (but that has little to do with making money off it). Just know that you don't need hollywood or its system to do your thing. They are scrambling right now so why rely on them?

 

[Ted Spencer]

I dunno...again, some of you seem to want to make it sound like Hollywood is basically in the business of saying no, almost regardless, to all of us poor victims of their caprice. But lots and lots of movies, at all levels of budget, come out all the time. So who finances those, the Easter Bunny?

As for it being tough - sure it is. It's *always* been tough - real tough - to make it in any of the arts. But people do make it every day. Is it tougher now than before? Most likely. Does the fact that 10 times as many bad movies are being made nowadays make it look tougher than it is? Almost certainly.

It's the same thing in the music business, although on a smaller scale financially and a larger scale product-glut wise. Everybody and his cat has a computer based "recording studio" (and don't even get me started on GarageBand) and therefore is a "music producer". Oy vey... So tens of thousands of musical wannabes flood the internet and every other pipeline with crap while the truly talented number virtually the same.

Show me a *truly* great indie film, and I'll show you a deal in the making. For millions? Probably not. Enough to get the film seen by lots of people? Yes. Then, like Barry says, if enough people *really like* it, you will find a backer. If enough people *really love* it, backers will be fighting over who gets to give you the big bag o' cash. That's how *they* make money in the entertainment business.

Which, by the way, I've been in, professionally, since before many, if not most of you here, were born.

^I excel at incurring high comma per sentences counts as well, just in case you missed that : )

 

[Zak Forsman]

well, haha, I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying that old model is broken from an independent filmmaker's point of view and that there is an alternative. in the last year or two I would consider Ballast to be one of the best films I've seen. I would consider We Live In Public to be one of the best docs I've seen this year. Anvil is one of the best. Sin Nombre, Burma VJ, Made in China, ... all of them bested the films I saw from the studios this year and the offers, if they received any offers, were very low figures and certainly not the sort of numbers that would sustain a filmmaker financially. call it rejecting hollywood if you want. that's not how i see it. I call it rejecting a system that doesn't work. I would never rest my strategy upon the idea that there is a pot of gold at the end of the distribution rainbow.

I can also list a slate of indie films that are far from "truly great" that had and took offers, it starts with Humpday.

 

[Sad Max]

Ted, I have been trying - and failing - to get a handle on precisely what your degree of involvement with film/tv production and distribution has been, over time - I understand that you have extensive experience in the music and recording business, but I am frankly agnostic regarding the degree to which any of that background transfers in a meaningful fashion, to the film/tv end of things.

I know that from my end I would not base conclusions and advice to people in the music business based upon my last 20+ years in film/tv production. I figure that you probably wouldn't do the reverse; what proportion of your ideas are based upon mainstream film/tv production experience, as opposed to the music field?

 

[ChipG]

Ok, I'll come back to hear this one

 

[Ted Spencer]

what proportion of your ideas are based upon mainstream film/tv production experience, as opposed to the music field?

I've been involved with the music score recording/mixing part of about two dozen features and docs, including:

Metropolitan*
Barcelona
Last Days Of Disco
American Splendor*, **
Nick & Jane
The Nanny Diaries
The Notorious Bettie Page
Off The Menu (the last days of Chasen's)
The Young And The Dead
Sound And Fury*
Well Founded Fear**
Rosalie Goes Shopping
Thank You And Good Night***
Toots (Shor)

* = Oscar Nominee
** = Sundance Grand Jury Winner
*** = Sundance Grand Jury Nominee

...and others I'm forgetting right now...

I've been included in much of the discussion surrounding these projects, including both creative and business matters, with the directors and producers.

I co-wrote a feature film that shot last fall, another of my own, and am going into production soon on a short I wrote and will direct. I've directed and co-directed many famous actors in voice recording sessions.

As an actor I've appeared in about seven features and numerous shorts.

But - am I a full-time TV or film-only pro, *exclusively*? No. Music is still the larger part of what I do, as I have repeatedly stated.

Does all of the above make me unqualified to speak on the subject, especially given the fundamental similarities between the dealmaking processes in the music versus film industries? I don't think so...

But you're entitled to, if you wish...

 

[Sad Max]

Hadn't formed a conclusion, which is why I asked.

 

[Ted Spencer]

My friend Mark Suozzo (the composer for all of Whit's films) is in fairly frequent contact with him. He (Whit) has been living in Barcelona for some time now, and purportedly working on a number of script/development ideas, although as you probably know, he hasn't made a film since "Disco". We're hoping he gets back to it sometime before too long. A very talented and likeable guy...