The next step: Distribution

Gillvane

Veteran
We've seen two successful big name kickstarters now, Veronica Mars and Zach Braff.

This means the end of the Hollywood "gate keepers", the money guys, the "suits", determining which movies get made and which movies don't see the light of day. You can now go directly to your fans and fund the movie. I am absolutely positive this is a new model that is here to stay and will only gain more and more popularity with the Hollywood crowd that have established themselves and now want more creative freedom.

however, the next step is distribution. Veronica Mars is going to be distributed by Warner Brothers. Distributors still have a big say in what movies get made, because they want movies for a big audience. It's been said in other threads that movies are often watered down for international audiences so they can be sold in more totalitarian places like China, or more socially prude places like India, etc.

So Veronica Mars goes forward in Kickstarter knowing they have distribution with WB, but what projects are going to flounder for lack of distribution because they don't appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I'd like to see a big name kickstarter that is then released on something like Vimeo on demand. This cuts the strings from the gate keepers totally. No Hollywood funding, AND no Hollywood distribution.

It's funded by the people, the artists keep control, and it's distributed by the artist as well. That way we have the best chance to see a more robust offering of content rather than dreck manufactured for the masses. I'm not saying that Veronica Mars or the Braff projects are dreck.

Sure, I like to see movies on the big screen, but unfortunately most of the big screens are owned by a few companies that only show what the big distributors sell them. Perhaps with digital projection we'll see some more diverse offerings on the big screen?
 
I admire your optimism, but I think it is misplaced, or at the very least way too early. There are multiple reasons for this.

First: Veronica Mars and Zach Braff are already established, and they were established by Hollywood. The only reason they are able to get millions of dollars from crowdfunding is that large numbers of people know who they are. This will not be the case for Indie filmmakers trying to get their first project off the ground.

Second: we're talking about small potatoes here. Veronica Mars got ~$5 million, which is really not much in the feature world. This will probably mean all the actors taking huge pay cuts. It also works for this project since Veronica Mars never used much special effects. However if you are wanting to make a big sci-fi, action, fatasy, adventure, etc., well then good luck. Your special effects are going to look like crap on a $5 million budget and you won't be able to fully compete against the bigger movies.

And lastly: I don't see how self distribution will ever be able to come close to the profits of studio distribution. It's not just about being in theaters, it's about your DVD being in stores across the country, about being in Redbox, about TV commercials and internet ads. Sure, all of these things can be done on an independent level, but you will never be able to even approach the level of the Hollywood machine.

What this means to me, is that Hollywood most definitely still has a place, and an important one. If you want to make a big movie, you will still have to go through studios. Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sources will be phenomenal for indie filmmakers that want to make small films that studios don't care about. This is a wonderful advancement and we should all be happy the option now exists. But the idea that this represents a sea change in the world of filmmaking is ludicrous from my point of view. Filmmaking is an incredibly expensive undertaking, and unless labor laws are overturned and we can resort to slavery, it always will be expensive. Crowdfunding simply does not have the power to support larger projects.
 
Shane Carruth managed to get "Upstream Color" into 104 independent theaters across North America. It's been playing in Toronto for 3 weeks now, and seems to be still going strong. ( I saw it last Saturday night and the show was sold out )
 
Self distribution is working well for comedians with forerunners Louis CK and Aziz Ansari leading the charge. Joe Rogan followed suit last December.

But, as jghenderson said, these are established comedians with a huge fan base. The challenge for any indie filmmaker is marketing your movie.
 
Wasn't self distribution and the internet supposed to all kill the major music labels like 10yrs ago? ;)

I think this will give people another option but I do not think it will surplant the studios in any major fashion. Self distribution, even if you are rich and famous, comes with it's own grind that people may or may not what to deal with. Trent Reznor recently partnered up with a label again for just that reason.

Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and other digital pioneers sour on 'pay what you want' music

On his Facebook page, Reznor wrote: "Complete independent releasing has its great points but also comes with shortcomings." In October, during an event to promote a book by rocker David Byrne, Reznor explained the decision for releasing An Omen with a major label. Reznor told the audience that How to Destroy Angels retains creative control, but when it came to marketing the band members believed they could use some help.

"No one else can write the songs I can write," Reznor told the audience, "But there's other people that can do some of that (marketing) stuff. The great part of self-releasing has been control of your own destiny. Nobody has approval. Finishing a song at midnight and putting it out the next day. Getting fans excited with no leak because you have the only copy and you uploaded and you didn’t publish. That’s fun. It felt great, particularly after a long career in the weirdness of the labels. But we wanted a team of people that are better at that than I am worldwide. That felt like it was worth slicing the pie up monetarily."


I think we are well into an era of creation and distribution options unlike ever before. Instead of the new supplanting the established, the new and the established will co-exist and people will chose what best works for them.


-Andrew

EDIT:
Self distribution is working well for comedians with forerunners Louis CK and Aziz Ansari leading the charge. Joe Rogan followed suit last December.

But, as jghenderson said, these are established comedians with a huge fan base. The challenge for any indie filmmaker is marketing your movie.
Louis CK has a new HBO special so even with his famously successful online venture he hasn't abandoned traditional distribution.
 
Last edited:
Shane Carruth managed to get "Upstream Color" into 104 independent theaters across North America. It's been playing in Toronto for 3 weeks now, and seems to be still going strong. ( I saw it last Saturday night and the show was sold out )
That's awesome.

And that's 1 movie.

There are 8321 other films set to be released this year (according to IMDb), and it's only May 1st.
 
there are 8321 other films set to be released this year

...So how many films will you watch in a year?

I watch between 80-100 over a year, which is probably much higher than the average person in North America does. ( some of my non film-making friends might see as few as 5-6 films in a year )
 
...So how many films will you watch in a year?

I watch between 80-100 over a year, which is probably much higher than the average person in North America does. ( some of my non film-making friends might see as few as 5-6 films in a year )
Personally? I watch around 450 films per year. So far it's 147 films in 2013 so I'm a bit behind, but I'm planning on at least two festivals so by the end of december I could reach 500.
Three of these 147 films were finished in 2013.

But most people don't watch that many.

When I worked at a multiplex selling tickets, it was a VERY common sight to talk to people who go to the cinema maybe 2-3 times per year.
I think it's likely most people don't watch more than, say, 30-40 movies per year, or maybe as you say 5-6.

Ten years ago, 3700 films were produced every year. Now it's 8700.

Granted not all of these are made for the North American market, and not all of them are suitable for world wide sales, but I don't think these extra 5000 films are Bollywood.
Most likely (if you ask me), this boom is first digital video, then in 2005 (when the numbers really starts taking off), it's digital video with 35mm adapters, then DSLRs.

This is saturating the market.

What I'm worried about also is this:
If every independent filmmaker out there self distribute their films via online VOD platforms like Vimeo or Amazon, and every filmmaker out there can set their own price, and there are this many filmmakers but only so few viewers, competition is going to be realy fierce.

How will that affect pricing?
 
...and there are this many filmmakers but only so few viewers, competition is going to be really fierce. How will that affect pricing?

The democratization of film production ( just wait until the Black Magic Pocket Cine Cameras start shipping in big numbers for only $995 ) is going to generate a few financial winners, and many many losers. If you want to make most of your living from Indie film, you're going to have to have a brilliant social promotion plan in place or be left behind by the people that do. Fan-base is everything.

...I read a Forbes magazine article last year that stated that the top 1,000 YouTube channels ( by subscription count ) receive an average income of $26K per month from Google.

Have you seen the type of content that this top 1,000 channels represents?

Some of it is absolutely great, but a large portion of it is just junk. ( but they have the fan-base, so the money keeps rolling in )
 
The democratization of film production ( just wait until the Black Magic Pocket Cine Cameras start shipping in big numbers for only $995 ) is going to generate a few financial winners, and many many losers. If you want to make most of your living from Indie film, you're going to have to have a brilliant social promotion plan in place or be left behind by the people that do. Fan-base is everything.

...I read a Forbes magazine article last year that stated that the top 1,000 YouTube channels ( by subscription count ) receive an average income of $26K per month from Google.

Have you seen the type of content that this top 1,000 channels represents?

Some of it is absolutely great, but a large portion of it is just junk. ( but they have the fan-base, so the money keeps rolling in )
That's interesting stuff.
Where can I find a list of these 1000 channels?
 
...So how many films will you watch in a year?

I watch between 80-100 over a year, which is probably much higher than the average person in North America does. ( some of my non film-making friends might see as few as 5-6 films in a year )


On the other hand... I'm sure the 'average' NA person watches far more TV as in a zillion stations, perhaps most cop shows and reality tv... but still sits there glued to the TV...

Someone is going to exploit it... and it most likely will be the current set of Broadcast and Cable content providers. But unlike in the olden days, where if one wanted to 'broadcast' there were major technology and regulatory hurdles to jump, just getting 'on the air', or in the case of cable, zillions of miles of cable to lay... these days, many people can put up something... so, perhaps 'boutique' portals will emerge, wherein for a 'nominal fee', one is given some amount of publicity... of some sort...
 
That's interesting stuff.
Where can I find a list of these 1000 channels?

I think this was discussed in another thread here, and I think these may be the URLs that were used.

http://www.openslatestudios.com/news/youtube-top-1000-channels-by-openslate.html

http://vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-1000-most-subscribed-channels


From the first site, one learns that about 25% of the subscribed channels involve music, 20% for gaming, 14% for comedy, 13% for entertainment, with 7% for 'howto & style' content, and 'beauty' predominating that category.
 
I admire your optimism, but I think it is misplaced, or at the very least way too early. There are multiple reasons for this.

First: Veronica Mars and Zach Braff are already established, and they were established by Hollywood. The only reason they are able to get millions of dollars from crowdfunding is that large numbers of people know who they are. This will not be the case for Indie filmmakers trying to get their first project off the ground.

Second: we're talking about small potatoes here. Veronica Mars got ~$5 million, which is really not much in the feature world. This will probably mean all the actors taking huge pay cuts. It also works for this project since Veronica Mars never used much special effects. However if you are wanting to make a big sci-fi, action, fatasy, adventure, etc., well then good luck. Your special effects are going to look like crap on a $5 million budget and you won't be able to fully compete against the bigger movies.

And lastly: I don't see how self distribution will ever be able to come close to the profits of studio distribution. It's not just about being in theaters, it's about your DVD being in stores across the country, about being in Redbox, about TV commercials and internet ads. Sure, all of these things can be done on an independent level, but you will never be able to even approach the level of the Hollywood machine.

What this means to me, is that Hollywood most definitely still has a place, and an important one. If you want to make a big movie, you will still have to go through studios. Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sources will be phenomenal for indie filmmakers that want to make small films that studios don't care about. This is a wonderful advancement and we should all be happy the option now exists. But the idea that this represents a sea change in the world of filmmaking is ludicrous from my point of view. Filmmaking is an incredibly expensive undertaking, and unless labor laws are overturned and we can resort to slavery, it always will be expensive. Crowdfunding simply does not have the power to support larger projects.

My point is not that it will help unknowns, or make billions. Just that the already established producers can hopefully put out something besides the main fare we see coming out of Hollywood. It's really been pretty homogenized since the 80's or so.
 
Unless the unknowns can build a social fan-base through other social-networking services.

TechDirt.com has published some great articles about how to survive as an Indie content producer ( i.e. music, film, books, etc... ), and here's a good one to check out...

The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There)

A common theme in those examples (and many others that I've investigated) is that many of the success stories are individuals / solo artists. That template doesn't seem to fit the typical indy filmmaker very well where the crew and cast size is large by comparison and projects are relatively few and far between. One avenue is to make shorts and how-to videos like FreddieW in hopes of building up a fan and monetary base that will allow you to do more long form content. On the flip side you have middlemen like Machinima which function kinda like new wave distributors. You make the content and then try to sell it to Machinima for them to distribute under their brand. Down side is that, from what I've heard, the split isn't very favorable to the content producer.

I think feature length filmmaking will be the last to find a suitable new business model as it is typically the most time, money and labor intensive.

-Andrew
 
A common theme in those examples (and many others that I've investigated) is that many of the success stories are individuals / solo artists. That template doesn't seem to fit the typical indy filmmaker very well where the crew and cast size is large by comparison and projects are relatively few and far between.

I disagree on this. If you have the talent and drive, it's possible to build up enough of a social fan-base to make KickStarter/Indie-Go-Go campaigns work, provided the genre you are working in doesn't require a large crew or huge amounts of pre or post production. This is going to eliminate large FX driven vehicles, but smaller story/character driven projects should thrive in this environment.

In regards to Machinima, here's an interesting article...

YouTube Stars Fight Back
 
I disagree on this. If you have the talent and drive, it's possible to build up enough of a social fan-base to make KickStarter/Indie-Go-Go campaigns work, provided the genre you are working in doesn't require a large crew or huge amounts of pre or post production. This is going to eliminate large FX driven vehicles, but smaller story/character driven projects should thrive in this environment.

I was more commenting on the YT success stories. KS/IGG I think is more open to one-off successes where as for video success on YT I think you need new content pretty much weekly in order to have a chance a building a following.

In regards to Machinima, here's an interesting article...

YouTube Stars Fight Back
Thanks for the link. I don't have time to read the whole thing now but I definitely will later.
 
Back
Top