Soderbergh's State of Cinema speech

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Great speech. Watch all of it, it's really worth it.

Some numbers from the speech that should really be considdered by anyone going into feature films today:

Admissions
Ten years ago: 1.52 billion
Last year: 1.36 billion

Amount of films released ten years ago:
In total: 455
Studiofilms: 180
Independent films: 275

Amount of films released last year:
In total: 677
Studio films: 128
Independent films: 549

To these numbers I'd like to add the increase in population despite the drop in admissions, as well as the fact that these are the amount of films released and not produced. Lots of films are produced but never released.

To put it in perspective, here's another video where Jon Reiss talks with Filmcourage about the numbers:

35,000 to 45,000 feature films trying to on on the Film Festival circuit each year, of those about 600 make it onto the regular circuit, and in a good year 50 to 100 films end up with some kind of distribution deal that makes them happy.

I know a lot of people still talk about Rodriguez, Tarantino, Jackson, Smith and Raimi, but none of those guys faced these kinds of numbers, and when they started out, online piracy was a non-issue.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Some numbers from the speech that should really be considdered by anyone going into feature films today:

Admissions
Ten years ago: 1.52 billion
Last year: 1.36 billion

Amount of films released ten years ago:
In total: 455
Studiofilms: 180
Independent films: 275

Amount of films released last year:
In total: 677
Studio films: 128
Independent films: 549

To these numbers I'd like to add the increase in population despite the drop in admissions, as well as the fact that these are the amount of films released and not produced. Lots of films are produced but never released.

I looked into the 'china' market recently, and the estimates are that China 'box office' is around $2B, and looks to continue to grow over the next few years.

It is my belief Hollywood will produced more films which require 'less editing' to match up with Chinese censorship requirements, thus leading to even less 'adult' (and not in the XXX sense...) fare from Hollywood.

Were I a marketing maven I could figure out some way to slide in the 'crack' between what Hollywood is producing, and will continue to produce, and what I think will be a growing 'domestic' market for more substantial film material.

In some sense, HBO with "Game of Thrones" and Starz with the "Spartacus" series, may be the future for material that is not directed to a large, albeit 'constricted' market such as China or India (Some cracks in Indian censorship seem to be appearing...). But still in both cases, if one makes a film that conforms to pre-60's Hays Code, one has a high likelihood of not running aground on many censored issues...

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I looked into the 'china' market recently, and the estimates are that China 'box office' is around $2B, and looks to continue to grow over the next few years.

It is my belief Hollywood will produced more films which require 'less editing' to match up with Chinese censorship requirements, thus leading to even less 'adult' (and not in the XXX sense...) fare from Hollywood.

Were I a marketing maven I could figure out some way to slide in the 'crack' between what Hollywood is producing, and will continue to produce, and what I think will be a growing 'domestic' market for more substantial film material.

In some sense, HBO with "Game of Thrones" and Starz with the "Spartacus" series, may be the future for material that is not directed to a large, albeit 'constricted' market such as China or India (Some cracks in Indian censorship seem to be appearing...). But still in both cases, if one makes a film that conforms to pre-60's Hays Code, one has a high likelihood of not running aground on many censored issues...

I don't think sliding between cracks is a good idea at this point.

Remember that as a filmmaker, your customers are not the consumers, your customers are the distributors. They're the ones who pay you money so they can market and sell your films to the consumers.

I think if you make films that fall between cracks of what other people are doing, they'll be harder to market and sell, and the independent competition is so fierce now it's unbelievable.

Anyway, I don't know where Steven Soderbergh or Jon Reiss got their numbers, because they don't say.
I'm guessing Soderbergh's were based on the US alone, and Reiss' numbers were global, even though 35000-45000 feature films per year seem very high.

So I checked IMDb.

In 1992 (according to IMDb), there were 3313 feature films released globally.
In 2002, there were 3722.
In 2004, there were 3799.
In 2012, there were 8607.

So I don't know if Reiss is including short films in those numbers, but 8607 features registered on IMDb in 2012 is high enough considdering all it takes is a festival screening and not an actual commercial release.

 

[Gillvane]

The free market abhors a vacuum. If there's a market for more targeted movie fare consumers will pay for it (or advertisers) and someone will produce it.

The distribution is there with Vimeo on demand, etc.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

The free market abhors a vacuum. If there's a market for more targeted movie fare consumers will pay for it (or advertisers) and someone will produce it.

The distribution is there with Vimeo on demand, etc.

Self distribution? I dunno.
It takes more than making a film and putting it out on Vimeo on Demand or Amazon Instant.
You have to find the audience for your film, and then they have to find you.

This takes a lot of time and money, and the big question is:

With so many filmmakers out there doing it, but only so many people out there paying for the service, will there be enough money in there to recoup the costs of production and marketing?

 

[Gillvane]

Self distribution? I dunno.
It takes more than making a film and putting it out on Vimeo on Demand or Amazon Instant.
You have to find the audience for your film, and then they have to find you.

This takes a lot of time and money, and the big question is:

With so many filmmakers out there doing it, but only so many people out there paying for the service, will there be enough money in there to recoup the costs of production and marketing?

If you are nobody it's practically impossible to cut through all the noise and find an audience or for the audience to find you. Yes, a one in a million El Mariachi or Blair Witch will break through, but that's going to remain rare.

But the somebody's (big name actors/directors) already have a built in audience and access to publicity. Now they are going to kickstarter for the money to MAKE the film. But they are still going to Hollywood to distribute the film.

What happens when they get the money to make a film, but Hollywood doesn't want to distribute it? That's where the opportunity for self distribution will pay off.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I don't think sliding between cracks is a good idea at this point.

Remember that as a filmmaker, your customers are not the consumers, your customers are the distributors. They're the ones who pay you money so they can market and sell your films to the consumers.

Well... sure... in the sense that a distributor is thinking of 'their' market, which is 'viewers', and how your 'product', that is The Film, matches up...

I think if you make films that fall between cracks of what other people are doing, they'll be harder to market and sell, and the independent competition is so fierce now it's unbelievable.

I do think this is due to the 'limited' method of distribution, and 'viewing' in brick and mortar theaters. Just as the brick and mortar bookstores have succumbed to the Internet for distribution, I think for a large class of films Internet distribution will become the dominant method.

Porn has been distributed this way for years now, with dwindling 'brick and mortar' theaters, 'peepshow' booths, etc.

The problem is how to publicize in the Internet...

Anyway, I don't know where Steven Soderbergh or Jon Reiss got their numbers, because they don't say.
I'm guessing Soderbergh's were based on the US alone, and Reiss' numbers were global, even though 35000-45000 feature films per year seem very high.

So I checked IMDb.

In 1992 (according to IMDb), there were 3313 feature films released globally.
In 2002, there were 3722.
In 2004, there were 3799.
In 2012, there were 8607.

So I don't know if Reiss is including short films in those numbers, but 8607 features registered on IMDb in 2012 is high enough considdering all it takes is a festival screening and not an actual commercial release.

I would be astonished if there are 30-50K 'feature length films' made each year... Although perhaps it could be if one were to consider 'submissions' rather than 'showings'... if the number of 'shown' films for the top tier fests are around 1000, and each fest gets 5000 submissions each... 10 top tier fests would yield 50K films 'in circulation'... 80% are rejected...

But back to porn... well not really... but here is a 'problem' I see with say a Netflix picking up 500 'top tier fest' shown films each year. At 500 films, that's about as many that Hollywood produces and gets into distribution. But there's a difference. Most of the fest films probably have not bothered, or don't have the funds to go for an MPAA rating, so, such films, while their content may be quite tame, will get a dreaded 'unrated' designation. I've not looked, but I don't recall Netflix carrying too many 'unrated' films, other than the 'art house' type films... Don't know about nolo budget 'horror/slasher' films... which is a niche market that seems to be ok with rather reduced production values...

A quick check for 'netflix' and 'unrated' or 'not rated' seems to indicate the film in question could be a TV show, an 'old classic' that was not given an MPAA rating, but made during the Hays Code period, or a film that has never been submitted to the MPAA for rating...

One of the reasons given for a theater not showing even "NC-17" material (which is an official MPAA rating...), let alone 'unrated', or parish the thought, so called X (not an official MPAA rating...), was that it was not 'family friendly'... The same seems to be true for the Internet streamers as well... and there was a similar sort of complaint about cable carriers in the 80's as they began to distribute 'soft porn'...

I'd rather parents play the greatest role in monitoring and insuring their children have access to what the parent's think appropriate, rather than have 'unrated' material ghettoized.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Self distribution will pay off when there's enough people willing to pay enough money to recoup production and marketing expenses.

It's that simple.

If you release a film on Amazon Instant or Vimeo on Demand and everybody else does that too, which the model you're suggesting kind of demands, there is going to be trouble.

The amount of films produced last year were almost 5000 more than the amount produced when Primer was released, but the amount of films people pay to see haven't grown.

Supply and demand. It's not looking good.

EDIT: That was a response to Gilvane's post. Took too long to write it and forgot to hit the quote button.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The free market abhors a vacuum. If there's a market for more targeted movie fare consumers will pay for it (or advertisers) and someone will produce it.

The distribution is there with Vimeo on demand, etc.

Sure, but getting your market aware of your offerings is the biggest problem at the moment.

I've been a member of Vimeo for years... the Wife still hasn't 'found' it yet... she is aware of Youtube... but doesn't look at much, because it is not captioned... so we mostly watch big ticket films since those have captions, and we buy disks or now do some streaming with services that are putting captions on.

I've also been looking at films made by deaf filmmakers, and there are a couple of 'small' distribution sites... (but the Wife doesn't sign... so that doesn't work for her either... we are taking ASL but our skill is not up to keeping up with dialog yet...).

 

[Drew Ott]

The supply of "really good" films isn't growing, in my opinion. If you can make a really good film, you won't have much competition.

 

[Bill Clar]

$60 million to market and distribute a feature film? That's an eye opener.

I'm curious as to the overhead for marketing and distributing a movie going straight to dvd. If most of the cost is in the distribution, then why do stars like
Zach Braff and Kirsten Bell have to resort to kickstarter? Unless I'm mistaken, the kickstarter money is only for productions costs, with the studios ponying up for distribution.

Seems like pitching a $2 million dollar "Veronica Mars" direct-to-DVD movie would be a no brainer for the studios. But, I'm armchair executive-ing.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

The supply of "really good" films isn't growing, in my opinion.

What's your definition of "really good"?

 

[Drew Ott]

What's your definition of "really good"?

I know it when I feel it.

The economics of filmmaking are discouraging at first, but after thinking the past few years, I don't really mind. This deserves to be an art, not an industry everyone should be supported by. I don't think people who churn out mediocre films should be able to make it their livelihood.

I am unsure if I'll ever pass "mediocre" myself, so I don't mean to sound arrogant. I think film-as-art has the most power to make its audience recognize the depth of life, and my hope is for our descendants in 100 years to still grasp some notion of the human experience.

 

[Batutta]

Seems like pitching a $2 million dollar "Veronica Mars" direct-to-DVD movie would be a no brainer for the studios.

The other thing you need to consider is that studios make 200 million dollar movies because they can get the financing for some or all of that from an outside source. They don't put up all their own money. That investment money is extra cash flowing through their balance sheets, earning interest, cash they don't need to pay back right away or at all if the movie flops. That's why making small movies is less attractive to them.

 

[Kholi]

Not sure if it's just early or what, despite the idea that I too am unsure if I'll ever generate anything better than mediocre and I would hate to have to find a different career -- with so much time and resource already invested into this one, I agree with him.

About the quantity of good (not really good, just good) product and the idea that purposely turning out mediocre should not be a viable path to bread and butter. I say purposely, because there are filmmaking "business" models that basically teach you how to create these kinds of things and there are some creators that mold their model/are trying to mold their model around producing low-effort content.

Not to say that I haven't and do not currently think about it, but have become much more concerned with becoming "okay" at what I want to do... not just passable.

Soderbergh's recent talking points, in interviews as well, sound valid to me. I enjoy hearing what he has to say. On the topic of distribution or self-distribution, well, like Jawa said just putting something on Amazon or in Redbox doesn't really get you anywhere. If that's your route, you should likely raise money for advertising and start building your audience as early as possible.

 

[norvan5]

His comments about recognizing talent and nurturing it over time within a system strikes as precisely what Coppola originally had in mind for American Zoetrope.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

His comments about recognizing talent and nurturing it over time within a system strikes as precisely what Coppola originally had in mind for American Zoetrope.

Of course, "creating art" with THX 1138 pretty much killed that idea, and almost killed the careers of Coppola, Lucas, Milius and Stone before they even began.

 

[refocusedmedia]

Of course, "creating art" with THX 1138 pretty much killed that idea, and almost killed the careers of Coppola, Lucas, Milius and Stone before they even began.

I don't think one begat the other. Watch the "Empire of Dreams" documentary for more on this.

Anyway, here is a great compliment to Soderbergh's speech: Dr. Epstein's post on Why Indie Movies Are An Endangered Species:

http://thehollywoodeconomist.blogspot.ca/2011/01/why-indie-movies-are-endangered-species.html

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I know it when I feel it.

Right, and so does everyone else.

Truth is though, what most people pay money to see is very generic, because that's "good" to them.

5 million people payed money to see A HAUNTED HOUSE at the cinema.
Obviously it's not a fluke, after five Scary Movies, Epic Movie, Superhero Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans etc.
This kind of stuff is what many, many people considder to be "good".

Obviously there's no accounting for taste, but still. 5 million people are not wrong.
You and I may not like these films, but it's important to respect that other people - paying people - do.

By the way, anyone here read the novel "I AM LEGEND" by Richard Matheson?

I know everyone wants to make their art. I understand that.
But it's important to remember that feature films take so long time, so many people and so much money to make, that it has to be art for the masses and not self indulgent art for the artist's own sake.

That's the short film format.

 

[Gillvane]

I don't think one begat the other. Watch the "Empire of Dreams" documentary for more on this.

Anyway, here is a great compliment to Soderbergh's speech: Dr. Epstein's post on Why Indie Movies Are An Endangered Species:

http://thehollywoodeconomist.blogspot.ca/2011/01/why-indie-movies-are-endangered-species.html

Basically it says Indie films used to be funded on the basis of pre-sales for the DVD market. The DVD market collapsed, so the funding for indies disappeared.