RED thoughts

[Ivanhurba]

I´m with Barry with the Internet distribution and have some ideas. A site like Youtube or Google Video could rate trailers of all kinds of films, and obviouly, the most rated or the best will get some buzz... That´s where you could get noticed from all those 500 channels. Of course with all the backyard directors equiped with Red, there will be a new boom of rating sites.

Then, the backyard proyectors or small cinemas could become as everything started... Mobile. It would be a good way of recovering some of the investment if the film get some exhibition this way.

I may be dreaming, but we are reaching a point where the price for a full system (production, distribution, exhibition) is not so exagerated; The idea of "i cook it, i eat it" With a little help, friends, -and money- is coming back home. And if it gets the attention of the BIG ones, even better.

 

[donatello]

a BETTER or the BEST movie doesn't make it marketable !!
hollywood distributors are ALWAYS looking for product.
you can send them a 90 min one shot scene of your wall and they will NEVER tell you it is crap - you'll get the standard we don't distribute films like that or we don't handle DV films or some other excuse ... a distributor will not tell you it is crap because you might make another project that is marketable and they want to see it - they might even throw in some kind words about the one shot project !!!

bottom line is hollywood doesn't look for the BEST film they are looking for the best MARKETABLE film .. if they think they can make good $$$ off your movie then they will TALK to you .. if they do NOT think they can make $$ you'll get the standard we don't distribute films like this etc .. remember they are not looking to break even they want a GOOD return ...

i have seen some good films over they years .. some send them to distributors - get turned down - and it goes into a closet and then they complain for the next X years how hollywood screwed them ..
and then i have seen films turned down and the filmmaker will 4 wall it in a few cities and then it gets picked up or they continue the 4 walling around the USA ..
doesn't matter if film had a $10 or 100mil budget - the ad in local paper cost the same .. ticket price is the same .. cost to operate the theater is the same ...

 

[im.thatoneguy]

I think if internet distribution catches on you aren't going to see it through a site like YouTube. Personally that isn't usually the audience I'm looking for, and they aren't the same people looking for long format entertainment, or drama. As Netflix and the like start to transition to a On-Demand IPTV model I think you'll see "internet" distribution taken seriously. Of course Netflix will probably just act much like a distributor and carefully screen incoming submissions, but the audience will appreciate that and netflix's recommendation system will help lift smaller films to a noticeable level. Best of all, with "all you can eat" downloading, people don't mind dropping nothing on trying your film. I wouldn't rent Snakes on a Train, I wouldn't go to a theater to see Snakes on a Train, but it's already in my netflix queue.

I don't think the current model is going to change much in that there is going to be a 'governing' body selectively looking for content. The difference is, if it is a $1000 investment to add a film to the library vs $10,000 you can take in 10 times as many films. Marketing $$ will still go to the same high profile films, and it'll be up to the independent film maker to get traffic to your film on their preferred PPV delivery service.

 

[Ivanhurba]

Im.thatoneguy I respect your opinion but dissing (¿?) the viewers of Youtube you´re commiting the same mistake as Hollywood. I´m one of them (29). Recently i found a short film -winner of Imagina long time ago- http://youtube.com/watch?v=JCFy-Zg26wg my mother and i loved.

It´s full o surprises and information and it´s getting lot of traffic. And free. And not all viewers have this short attention deficit. Even my father has been there in his coffe breaks...

It´s not about distributing through YTube; it´s about advertising. Fosters (i think it was them) has just dumped TV ads to go through Internet "Because TV sucks". I spend more time in front of my computer than in front of my television and i´m not alone. People, and specially young ones, are changing the sofa for a more confortable chair in front of their LCDs (while they wait for a good projector to go back to the sofa and surf there). If you discard them, you are throwing away an important part of the present and future cinema goers or Netflix customers... And i´m with you that Netflix is a great way of dist. Just take one step more and download through Internet and you´re done. Specially with the people surfing the web.

I´m sorry. Forgive me if i don´t make sense but i´ve been awake for a long time and maybe i´m not expressing myself very clearly. I´m not trying to offend anybody.

 

[pheboglobi]

With the ever increasing number of ways to distribute content over cable, satellite, and especially the internet, one would think that the larger studios would not be making less and less films each year (as it seems to be the trend). It seems as though they are resigning themselves to the "higher" end of the market - large, expensive films with recognizable, expensive stars. Sure, they could make a movie for $10million that was enjoyable to watch (but they'd have to spend $30mil to market it still), and they might even make a few million after the marketing bill. But a few millions is not enough for them. They're interested in hundreds of millions of dollars. So why bother with making $10mil movies that can distract people from going to see a bigger movie that they have spent $300mil on? It would probably seem counter-productive to them.

Now comes us. We're the smaller filmmakers with relatively small budgets, and fortunately for us, the price of quality production tools is (slowly) coming down to within reasonable personal budget ranges. Now the major studios may not care if a film made a profit of $100k, but if it were my film, I'd be freaking estatic. This is where our real oppurtunity is, since the major studios seem to be on a continual process of abandoning the smaller to middle range films and the niche markets.

Still have to find the audience, sell the product, and make a profit, of course; it's been made easier with the tools of the internet, but still not all that easy to do.

YouTube is okay to watch short things on, but the encoding is crap, the sound is pretty bad, and the screen is pretty small. Maybe they should offer the option to pay for a much better looking, sounding version, but we'd all need a major bandwidth upgrade before that could take off. (i.e. watch the trailer, ooh, I like it, let's pay $2 to download the HD version to play on my computer/TV)

enough with my rambling,
Garrett

 

[Sproketz]

Alot of great comments here. Here's another take.

Although there is alot of complaints about the quality of studio films contributing to declining profits, even good films from polished producers and directors are having it tough. I think the profitability problem has more to do with the current financial structure of the industry than the "product".

The studios are going to go through a retrenchment period. Films are simply costing too much and even the big "event" films are having problems being profitable. I saw an article recently stating that Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and a third partner (maybe John Calley?) got $30 million just for exercising thier "first look" option with Sony over "The DaVinci Code". What would the cast get on top of that? The film has been successful but not up to "expectations".

A huge problem is the marketing money. This whole business that the studios have allowed to happen, the "big opening weekend", is what forces such huge advertising dollars. Used to be films could grow on word-of-mouth and they stayed in the theater longer. Now they must have the big opener, and without the benefit of word-of-mouth there is no choice but to advertise BIG to bring people in. I lived in San Diego when both E.T. and "Raiders" came out. E.T. played for nearly a year and Raiders nearly the same.

Now you get a "little" film like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and it plays for a year, the old fashioned way, on good WOM.

They are going to have to give films a better chance to be successful by building a less costly business model. That includes keeping the cost of movie going reasonable. At least in the big cities, the cost is significant to see a movie, have a soda and some popcorn.

Now, switching topics to Red.

As mentioned in other posts, I think there is just a tiny bit of overconfidence that Red is going to turn the film business upside down. Most indie filmmakers are not going to be making much better films than what they are already doing. The handicap of shooting your "feature" on video is on the flip side, a handy excuse to cover bad scripts, acting, directing, etc.

With Red, you are going to have a nice sharp, bright light focused directly on every aspect of the production and you are gonna have to work much harder and have more talent for bad work not to show.

What seems never to get much mention here is television as a professional path (I see some noses turning up!)

Television is a big, giant, hungry animal for content. It's a great place to hone skills and earn a track record and get PAID. Although budgets have declined from the old days, there is more demand for content than ever. Many older directors like Sydney Pollack came up this way. Ridley Scott was in commercials. What about Michael Mann? Some have come up from music videos. Although MI III died, J.J. Abrams got a studio feature. Many, many indie directors are bent on their "features" and don't have the skills or talent to jump directly to a studio feature.

But with Red, you can produce network quality work if you can muster the other elements to make a great show.

 

[joelnet]

Of course Netflix will probably just act much like a distributor and carefully screen incoming submissions, but the audience will appreciate that and netflix's recommendation system will help lift smaller films to a noticeable level.

The problem with Netflix is what they'll pay your for your indie film. I met someone that made a 16mm drama with some B list actors that won a fair number of Festival awards. Netflix gave them less than $10k for all rights. Basically Netflix can make as many copies as they want and rent them all.

That's money - but it's a fraction of what it cost to make the movie.

If you can figure out how to use that exposure to create other sales then it might make some sense.

Anyone else have Netflix info regarding how they purchase? Surely they pay a lot more for bigger movies... but how much for what? Is it all based on the opening weekend like a lot of distribution deals?

 

[AshG]

Listen to Barry, he is dead on. I have this talk on other forums every time a new camera is released. I think the confusion stems from people misunderstanding Hollywood. A few things to realize...

Hollywood is in no way in any real trouble, the only people that have been hurt are the crew who are making less and less for doing more work. I dont shoot narrative movies for a JOB, I do press kits, behind the scenes, docs, etc. I was doing an EPK for a $20 million movie and the days I shot, I was the highest paid tech person on the set, including the DP, cinematographer, etc. The problem in Hollywood is the producers who are getting silly advances and causing budgets to explode.

Another misconception is that Hollywood is embracing digital and turning away from film. Film is not dead, not near dead and no HD cam will ever kill it. You can rattle off your list of films shot in digital and in HD and I will post the other 99.9% of movies still shot on 35mm. It would also shock many to know that in almost EVERY case, the cost of shooting HD on these big movies was not a factor and not a noticeable savings. Until you have 4K cameras with rock solid workflows that major DPs and cinematographers endorse, film will be king.

Another thing to understand, is that when digital finally does overcome film, the gates of Hollywood will not swing open. This is the thing that drives me the most crazy, is the contention that somehow, when technology becomes accessible that there will suddenly be more opportunity. Guess what? The tech is the very LAST thing that is in the way, there are 10 hurdles before you even get there. The honest truth is that once the technology is cheaper, while there will be the occasional diamond, there will be a bunch of really crappy high-rez movies being pitched to everyone.

Want to test that theory? Go to every single forum on the internet, look at the work being posted and imagine ONLY changing the tech so that everything was shot on 35mm or in 4K digital. How many are more marketable or appealing solely because of that?

Will digital projection, the internet, etc. open the door for indie features? ABSOLUTELY...but... not the backyard film maker. I think you will see more movies in the $5mill to $10mill being made because at that level you can do it right, get marketable talent, a solid script, good writer, etc. For every person who makes a self funded uber-low budget feature that finds success, there will be 100 others who go broke trying to do so.



ash =o)

 

[joelnet]

I think you will see more movies in the $5mill to $10mill being made because at that level you can do it right, get marketable talent, a solid script, good writer, etc. For every person who makes a self funded uber-low budget feature that finds success, there will be 100 others who go broke trying to do so.

I agree, but I think for every $5million dollar movie that makes a profit there will be dozens of those that lose money too.

But I also think we'll see really good stuff being made for under $200k in the upcoming years. Most of those will make their money back. Look at what TheOre.net guys are pulling off with an HVX200. Good digital set extensions etc. are doable. International VFX artists working for cheap will be coming online. Need a building blown up? $500 from a Romanian artist. It's coming. Might be 5 years away, but it's coming.

Gotta pick a "no star required" genre and still deliver a good story.

But you're right about Hollywood: they are in the $100million+ movie game and we'll never EVER compete directly... but we may get a meeting to pitch our stuff if we're good enough at low budget stuff. That's the filmmaker farm system.

Ultimately marketing a good concept will remain a BIG key. I personally don't believe the star system means much outside of some comedy, romantic comedy and drama where the only reason you give the thing a chance is because Jack Nicholson or Will Farrel is in it. I think stars are way overpaid and there are many examples of them not bringing any numbers into the opening. Halley Berry as Catwoman? No one cared - Overpaid.

Winning Festivals like Sundance is probably way overrated as these "blockbusters" attest:

2006
Quinceañera (2006)
(Grand Jury Prize)

Forty Shades of Blue (2005)
(Grand Jury Prize)

Primer (2004)
(Grand Jury Prize)

American Splendor (2003)
(Grand Jury Prize)

Personal Velocity: Three Portraits (2002)
(Grand Jury Prize)

Believer, The (2001)
(Grand Jury Prize) Girlfight (2000)

---

 

[D_and_G]

Hollywood is in no way in any real trouble, the only people that have been hurt are the crew who are making less and less for doing more work. I dont shoot narrative movies for a JOB, I do press kits, behind the scenes, docs, etc. I was doing an EPK for a $20 million movie and the days I shot, I was the highest paid tech person on the set, including the DP, cinematographer, etc. The problem in Hollywood is the producers who are getting silly advances and causing budgets to explode.

Well, I don't want to belabour the point, but i don't think that's the whole story. Granted, I'm no Hollywood expert, but every business article, every summit of major Hollywood business and creative executives I've read of have realized that the business model isn't working, and the only thing sustaining it is ancillary revenues. For instance, Sony executives were dismissed and reorganized, the stock to a hit, in the non-Spiderman years. Time/Warner shareholder meetings are all about finding ways to stabilize revenue into predictable patterns instead of the boom bust business model. Seasoned producers are getting out of the business because the risk/reward ratios are out of control. And change is on the horizon.
Barry may be right that they will just switch over to another closed loop for distribution, but I still think there MAY be more room for smaller targeted flicks to get picked up. Or take advantage of these new distribution modes, with the right recipe of course.

And as far as I know it's the ballooning costs of p&a, combined with the + gross profit participants that have cut the revenue. But like I said, this is from an outsiders pov. Maybe it's producers like you said. Being a small time one myself, I tend to disagree

Will digital projection, the internet, etc. open the door for indie features? ABSOLUTELY...but... not the backyard film maker. I think you will see more movies in the $5mill to $10mill being made because at that level you can do it right, get marketable talent, a solid script, good writer, etc. For every person who makes a self funded uber-low budget feature that finds success, there will be 100 others who go broke trying to do so. ash =o)

I think we are sort of agreeing here. I don't think that shooting on RED will guarantee a shot at anything. But when there are more $5-10 million pictures being distributed off a wider array of platforms, then it's like the development/minors for talented filmmakers. Right now there isn't that available (for the most part). RED will give talented filmmakers more image choice, and maybe an easier shot at distribution (all else being equal) and thus a shot at getting noticed for the minors. :beer:

Just my 3 pence. RED isn't going to change the fact that you're going to have to step up to the plate and deliver a great movie. Also, there seems to get lost in the mix of narrative feature focus here (myself included) that with the image possibilities you can produce for a wider degree of content, sticking in the game longer, and making a living, possibly seguing.

RED # wish I was higher

 

[Gordon Prince]

Film is not dead, not near dead and no HD cam will ever kill it. You can rattle off your list of films shot in digital and in HD and I will post the other 99.9% of movies still shot on 35mm. It would also shock many to know that in almost EVERY case, the cost of shooting HD on these big movies was not a factor and not a noticeable savings. Until you have 4K cameras with rock solid workflows that major DPs and cinematographers endorse, film will be king.

I'm sorry but this is NOT true! I can't say the film will be dead in the same way you CANNOT say as definitive truth that the film will be king. As I posted:

I don't know how it happens in the United States but in Europe during October 2005 we were looking for any digital shot feature it could possible to find across the street. Nowadays, in the movie house of my neighbourhood a half of the movies there (Superman, Miami Vice, Me and You and Everyone We Know and another title that I can't remember the name now) were digitally shot.

50% "just" 50%. It's not scientific but speaks some couple of months, being less than a year of personal observation, just since 2005 to 2006. And where hollywood has its hits (it isn't the typical movie house for indies).

Will digital projection, the internet, etc. open the door for indie features? ABSOLUTELY...but... not the backyard film maker.

I disagree. It's already open even before the DV: El Mariachi (1992), Blair Witch (1999), Tarnation (2003) and so on... Where have you been? Maybe not near your own business but there are other people out there. Fortunately. Wait and see. Stay tuned.

 

[im.thatoneguy]

International VFX artists working for cheap will be coming online. Need a building blown up? $500 from a Romanian artist. It's coming. Might be 5 years away, but it's coming.

<rant>
Oh god I hope not. There seems to be a contempt in much of the indie community for those who want to make a decent living then go home to their wife, kids and nice house. Am I the only one who wants to live a comfortable life making films without having to mortgage my house to pay the editor?

Personally I think the responsibilities and difficulties of creating a worthy product are worth the "obscene" rates that are commanded in the industry. People don't think twice of paying their mechanic $40 an hour, but when it comes to art all of a sudden I'm supposed to work 16 hour days and eat paint? Why? Because I love it?

Someone on this forum commented they would be ecstatic if their film made a $100k profit. Really? After you pay your crew a living wage are you going to be able to afford health insurance for your kids?

Just because most of us can't afford the multi million dollar budgets of a Hollywood production doesn't mean that it's not a fair price. The only reason films can usually be produced in the sub 50k range is because people volunteer their time, they do it out the kindness of their hearts.

I personally hope the backyard film movement fails miserably because it's only inches short of exploitation and it'll set a new low standard in the professional industry. The only way to make money from a YouTube economy is to get picked up professionally and sign a contract. YouTube is rolling in the cash as a result of the hard work and creative expression of thousands of artist who aren't making a penny. That's a revolution alright, a self imposed slavery.

If you have talent you deserve better than the life of McDonalds worker.
</rant>

 

[Gordon Prince]

I follow you and I agree. The only echo that I've been trying to clear up it's to those industry believers without clemency to the other sort of moviemakers. Among these (latter) ones, the 'backyard makers'. As usual seen as the amateurs. Genre of consumers. And as it could be the end of the story. It isn't. And it will not be accomplished each day of "our" common future.

 

[adaml]

Mike at hdforindies.com has a link to and comments on a relevant article. Scroll down to Hollywood Belt Tightening, Monday Aug. 21.

 

[joelnet]

I'm supposed to work 16 hour days and eat paint? Why? Because I love it?

No. Because this is an industry where all of your competition loves it that much.

This is very typical of any hobby/glamour industry people are dying to get into - like acting. Plumbing pays more because people NEED plumbing and not everyone wants to do it.

Hollywood is having to deal with problems of their own. As distribution channels increase they lose control and they have a much tougher time throwing enough dollars out there to make a profit.

Having said that, I think there will be a bunch of millionaire indie filmmakers who MARKET THEIR OWN STUFF very well. That's where the battle of this business lies. This business is a gamble that might pay off but the vast majority will lose a bunch of money - including Hollywood players.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/business/media/19hollywood.html?ei=5065&en=b7d1054e554ce0d7&ex=1156651200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1156079610-F13uDzWqDzvH75/ls8F2ng

 

[donatello]

"People don't think twice of paying their mechanic $40 an hour"

please give us their name/location .. i just took our car into honda and the rate was $130hr !!!!

"International VFX artists working for cheap will be coming online. Need a building blown up? $500 from a Romanian artist. It's coming. Might be 5 years away, but it's coming."

it's already here !! many persons i know working on personal projects are having others they meet over internet construct/create elements of special effects ... some larger company's are having animation created in India, China, south america ...

anyone notice that the studio's are starting to BUY dot.com's that post video's !!! sony just bought a company in SF bay area ...

IMO no budget movies are going to look better shot on a RED but the script, acting will still be the problem = so -so ... remember nobody sets out to make a bad movie ... i've yet to meet a filmmaker that didn't think their script/idea/finished movie was great and a sure hit ( it's their ticket to hollywood) and everybody will want to see it ...

the no budget has always had a way " in " to hollywood - it's just not a large # they find that is marketable ... has nothing to do with shot on SD video .. InDigEnt entertainment shoots just about all their projects on hand size camera's with a budget around 150K (basically they pay everybody $100 day .. actors get min SAG rate ( low budget rate) and they give crew a per cent - actors get a larger per cent ... here's a list of some of their productions - approx 1/2 of them have had big screen releases ... what's the difference between their 150k and our 150k productions - SCRIPT & EXPERIENCED actors !!!

their films
Final / Chelsea Walls | Women in Film | Tape | Ten Tiny Love Stories | Tadpole | Personal Velocity | Kill the Poor | Pieces of April | November | Pizza | Lonesome Jim | Land of Plenty | Flakes | Sorry, Haters | Puccini For Beginners

from InDigEnt
" Filmmakers agree to work within a framework of budgetary and technical limitations in exchange for an innovative financial structure and total creative freedom. The entire crew shares in the revenue generated from the first dollar, making this model the truest partnership in filmmaking. "

 

[joelnet]

" Filmmakers agree to work within a framework of budgetary and technical limitations in exchange for an innovative financial structure and total creative freedom. The entire crew shares in the revenue generated from the first dollar, making this model the truest partnership in filmmaking. "

I think this is a pretty good business model. As a filmmaker WE are the one's who have to write these checks... so yeah, I'm going to be as conservative as possible spending on anything that doesn't show up on Red's sensor. A LOT of people can act. Few directors know how to cast and direct them. Fewer people can write stuff that CAN be acted out believably. Fewer still write screenplays you want to see.

semi-associated thought:
If Tom Cruise is WORTH $40 million by himself then even he shouldn't have a problem with an arrangement like the company above offers. But the truth is, Tom isn't worth that much. How much did Vanilla Sky make? He's not worth squat w/o a ton of marketing money getting the movie out there. ERGO - you could have made War of the Worlds with ANY decent actor in the lead role and roughly the same number of people would have turned out to see it.

It's more about the movie concept and the marketing than the movie star when it comes to someone choosing to watch or not.

 

[im.thatoneguy]

The problem with films though is a good portion of the time the film, no matter how good, just doesn't cut a profit. I think we need large distribution companies to be able to absorb and average out these losses or else the independent company will be living in a feast/famine cycle. I would much rather make consistantly less money if they're willing to absorb a significant amount of the risk.

Even if you have the best script, the best actors, the best crew, the best director and the best editor, sometimes movies just don't work for whatever reason. I would hate to see the production company fold because the stars didn't align. This is another problem the RED camera isn't going to solve. The best solution I've seen to a problem like this is from big name investors like coppola who is financing independent films much like a large studio without necessarily bringing the politics along.

And not all film making is frivolous. TV commercials and marketing promos are just as important and necessary to the business environment as transportation.

 

[joelnet]

I would much rather make consistantly less money if they're willing to absorb a significant amount of the risk.

The problem is so would everyone. Distribution companies absorb incredibly little risk in comparison to the filmmaker because you and 100 other filmmakers drop off your films every week. The distributor picks the ONE they think will be easiest to sell and can be had for the least amount of money.

I would hate to see the production company fold because the stars didn't align.

They do all the time. So do distributors for that matter. It's a very tough business. Coppola has access to industry connections, has his own money and finances pet projects. You think there's no politics? Take a look at who Zoetrope produces - Roman Coppola, Sofia Coppola, Robert Duvall, Victor Salva, Tim Burton and a few others. Now he is having a screenwriting contest, maybe that'll be different. Enter that and maybe you'll get access to someone who's willing to take a chance on you.

TV commercials DO pay if you can get them. A lot of people work on commercials, corporate and events in order to pay for their movie.

I hate to paint a bleak picture, but I've been studying this for a couple years now and it is pretty bleak. Only after you show some ability to complete profitable projects will money will start showing up - but by then self financing could make more sense because you have reduced your own risk by establishing a fan base and raising your skill level.

 

[Barry_Green]

Only after you show some ability to complete profitable projects will money will start showing up - but by then self financing could make more sense because you have reduced your own risk by establishing a fan base and raising your skill level.

This is exactly, completely true. And it always will be, no matter what business you're in.

In general philosophical terms: if you want someone to do something that benefits you (and only you), that ain't gonna happen.

If someone wants you to do something that will benefit them, and you can structure the circumstances so that it benefits you too... that's the recipe to success right there.