The really bad things about the Indie Film Biz heading into 2013

refocusedmedia said:
Coming from this blog post I saw shared on Twitter: http://trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com/2012/12/the-really-bad-things-in-the-indie-film-biz-2012.html

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the points brought up, some of which seem pretty valid.
Click to expand...

Who makes better movies? The French who are heavily subsidised by the government, and also heavily regulated by the government, or the US?

The French are busy making movies...that no one wants to watch. Because it doesn't matter since the money comes from the government. My point?

"I have to admit though Napoleon Dynamite was a surprise; how can the creators only get 12.88%? Even it being legal, it’s not right."

This is just plain wrong thinking. The more you control the more you ruin incentive and the more crap you create.

The people that RISK are the ones that get rewarded. If you make the risk takers give everything to the "creators" there is no incentive to risk, to gamble on a Napoleon Dynamite.

If you want the lions share of the reward, then risk your own money. Everyone is ready to reap the rewards when they have nothing to lose, but "creators" don't lose a 100 million dollars when the back a John Carter or something like that.

IMO, your ideas lean towards the French model of film making, which does not produce compelling films. Most of your points are complaining about the free market basically. I'm an artist, and I don't make anything people want to see (Art films) but I should still get paid for it. No, not really.
 
I could not agree more with Gilvane.

Here in Canada government financing has created an industry that is mostly oblivious to reaching an actual audience. Not only do they have contempt for what they call "the masses" (whom I call ordinary, hard working people who want to enjoy a good film) but there is no knowledge at all of the basics of storytelling - I mean producers here don't even know what you would learn in a basic screenwriting class. In a free market situation like Hollywood they would be ejected immediately. Here they are given awards by committees that are basically a circle jerk of the people they went to high school with in the 1950s, handing out my tax dollars to each other and patting each other on the back for how artistic and virtuous they are, never once thinking that maybe their films don't make money because they are boring and depressing, not because they are superior in any way.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
I could not agree more with Gilvane.

Here in Canada government financing has created an industry that is mostly oblivious to reaching an actual audience. Not only do they have contempt for what they call "the masses" (whom I call ordinary, hard working people who want to enjoy a good film) but there is no knowledge at all of the basics of storytelling - I mean producers here don't even know what you would learn in a basic screenwriting class. In a free market situation like Hollywood they would be ejected immediately. Here they are given awards by committees that are basically a circle jerk of the people they went to high school with in the 1950s, handing out my tax dollars to each other and patting each other on the back for how artistic and virtuous they are, never once thinking that maybe their films don't make money because they are boring and depressing, not because they are superior in any way.
Click to expand...

. . .ah, another unsuccessful telefilm/canada council applicant.
 
Pretty much disagree with a lot of the points in the blog. I know numerous filmmakers who aren't rich and able to survive and work exclusively in film. Indie films rarely contain farts or low-brow humor (except maybe on YouTube). Film is certainly not going to die out in 2013, or even further down the road. Not sure what "system" isn't granting opportunities to women filmmakers that it does to men. Got some specifics?

I think the cold reality is that almost all indie films that are made aren't very good. Plain and simple. Most people don't have success because most people don't produce work that they can sell.
 
not sure about the free market part. if you have a movie finished and ready for distribution(even with a lot of buzz and awards like most Sundance winners), most distribution deal you see are pants, very limited distribution, bad week, almost no advertisement, and the creators of the film get peanuts at the end of the day. the best they can hope for is exposure for the next project if they were lucky enough.
 
I don't think that the marketplace is the best arbiter of what makes a good film but the marketplace provides the money. It would be great if the studios helped out new, great talents so that they wouldn't have to wait so long for their next film but that's the way it is. I'm reading David Denby's "Do the Movies Have a Future" and he makes that comment, that the big machine could want smarter and better films but they exist to make money.

But for indies. I don't know. I don't think that you can expect commercial interests to help you. If you do something great then they'll help you because they can profit. Otherwise, you're on your own.

Check this out. Francis Ford Coppola answering a question (credit 99U.com)

How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?
We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.

That's it.
 
Last edited:
The problem from my perspective has, is, and will be the way films are financed. It's all $$ driven with very little room for art. Maybe in France and Canada it is the opposite problem. I can't speak to that really. But it seems to me that there should be room in the world for a bit of both.

I posted these clips in a thread almost 2 years ago on whether or not it's possible to shoot a great feature for under $10K. They seem equally relevant to this discussion. The following segment (about 22 minutes total) from Charlie Rose is a good primer on the issue film financing. The video features producers David Brown and David Picker.


Part One:

Part Two:

Bios of the guests from Rose's web site
David Brown is an American movie producer. He is best known as the production partner of Richard D. Zanuck. They were jointly awarded The Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1990 for their achievements in producing. Among their films were two of Steven Spielberg’s early films, ‘The Sugarland Express’ (1974) and ‘Jaws’ (1975), and later hits such as ‘Cocoon’ (1985), and ‘Driving Miss Daisy ‘(1989).
​
In addition to his many successful films, David Brown has produced numerous Broadway musicals, including ‘Sweet Smell of Success: The Musical’ (2002), ‘Dirty Rotten Scoundrels’ (musical) (2005), and the off-Broadway Jerry Herman musical revue ‘Showtune’ (2003).
​
David Picker is an executive producer who has spent more than forty years in the film business, working his way up from the publicity department to the executive suites at United Artists during a15-year tenure with the company. He has also held executive posts at both Paramount and Columbia. Picker served as Producer or Executive Producer on varied projects, ranging from biopics to crowd-pleasing comedies to strong dramatic fare.
​
During his time at UA, Picker was responsible for such films as the Oscar-winning “Tom Jones”, the James Bond series, the Oscar-winner “Midnight Cowboy” and the “Last Tango in Paris”. He left UA in 1973 and formed his own production company. Films made under his banner included “Juggernaut”, and Dustin Hoffman’s tour-de-force as comedian Lenny Bruce in “Lenny”. During his tenure at Paramount he oversaw such films as “Saturday Night Fever”, “Grease” and the Oscar-winning “Ordinary People”. In 1997, Picker was tapped as President of Hallmark Entertainment Productions Worldwide with the mandate to expand the company into feature film production.
​
 
thanks for sharing that, keylight. I watched it all and it is fascinating. The thrust of that blog post seemed to be about strictly independent films as I read it and decried distribution deals after production, right? So Picker talks about negative costs, the studio absorbing loses from riskier films by maximizing profits on larger ones. That's a larger eco-system than I think is being discussed in that blog post and anyone who is self producing could only turn to the studios for distribution, if they had that possibility. This is all largely above my pay grade, I admit, and from this discussion that this world is not open to me as a producer.

My reason for posting the Coppola quote was to say that if you don't have the clout in that larger eco-system, and your efforts are to produce meaningful films that could not survive the journey through that larger eco-system then you cannot complain when your efforts aren't better treated (i.e. given broad and generous distribution).

I think, as a self-producer, that if you do something great, then you may gain the interest of people who can help you make money at your art. But I think to start, you're on your own.
 
Yeah, two old guys discussing, twenty years ago, the biggest of big hollywood films, has pretty much zero relevance to indie films situation in 2012, and prospects in 2013. While the blog mentions various issues, the whole thing boils down to: how do you monetize content? Who financed it is completely irrelevant. It comes down to distribution and advertising. Take an example like Paranormal Activities. It didn't matter one whit who financed that - in this case it was the director, but what if it was a bank, or a studio, or kickstarter, or a dentist? It wouldn't matter one bit. It doesn't make one whit of a difference if Jesus Christ himself financed it. Who cares??? Certainly not the audience. The challenge was in getting it distributed. How do you get it - or any film - distributed?

If you can't get it distributed in channels that offer monetization, you are out of luck, period. It's like having a product and not having a shop or a place or venue - even a virtual one on the internet - to sell. If you have nowhere for the customer (audience) to have a chance to purchase (pay to see) your product, your whole model collapses - nobody sees it, and you get no money. The end.

Well, how do you get distribution? There really is only one way - the distributors have to believe that there is money to be made from your product, because they control distribution. If one day you can eliminate them, you will make money directly... and that's one way filmmakers have been doing it since cinema began - self-distribution! You can four-wall it. You can sell DVDs from your own website. Heck, a film we all watched being created here on dvxuser "Deuce of Spades" is essentially that path - self-distribution.

But if you - for whatever reason - cannot or will not self-distribute, then you are at the mercy of distributors. So how do you get the distributors to believe you have a great product that wil MAKE THEM MONEY? Well, you can go to trade shows, or be seen at festivals or you knock on doors one by one. But really it all boils down to: do you in fact have a film that is engaging and exciting? If you go to distributors one by one, or you go to trade shows, you are not factoring in the audience directly. You are only addressing yourself to the distributors. And distributors are a tiny slice of the audience, and they are not necessarily right about what will sell. Sometimes they don't believe in a product that actually goes on to make a fortune - they're plain wrong. Sometimes they are wrong in your favor - they believe in it and pay for it, but the audience is not there... or they promote it poorly or you get unlucky (say, 9/11 happens when you open, and sucks up all the oxygen!).

That brings us to one other way in which you get distributors to want to distribute your film for good money - you bring in the audience. You show them that there is DEMAND. That's where festivals come in. First you have to get lucky - LUCKY - to get accepted and shown in a festival... again, the gatekeepers to festivals can be WRONG and deny you, even if you have great product. But if you do get accepted to a festival and the audience LOVES your film, then the distributors know that the demand is there, and if things go right, you get a good deal. You get distribution. Then you pray that the distributors do a good job in marketing.

However, there is another way than a festival to bring in the audience and prove that demand exists for the distributors. That's what the guy behind Paranormal Activities did - he created a big word of mouth campaign through social media, such as youtube etc. - and then got the studio interested enough to take it off the shelf and put some money in post and distribute it. Had he been sitting on his @$$, we'd never hear about PA.

You, the creator, needs to be proactive in bringing in the audience, first to get distribution. But your job is not finished. It is also your job - especially as an indie - to make sure that once the movie is distributed, it gets marketed well - you gotta get the audience out there interested enough to see it. That's what the PA guy did.

And that's success.

Of course, once you are established - i.e. you've proven you're a rain-maker - now the distributors and studios are willing to take a chance on you, and your next project, so your job is easier.

But it all starts with having a product the audience wants to see. Here's the breakdown:

1)A product that can be marketed - doesn't mean "good" or "great", just that it can be marketed. Many bad movies are successful $, because they can be marketed successfully as we all know from having seen many bad genre movies (especially horror).

2)You get distribution by hook or by crook. Either you are ace about approaching distributors, or finding the audience first, and then finding distributors... but that won't happen, unless you have point (1) above.

3)You are a great promoter and keep beating the drum to get as many people to see it as possible. That's one reason certain extremely successful directors never stop promoting - see Hitchcock in the past or Tarantino today. Because that's what's gonna determine if your product makes money and therefore you will continue to have a career.

That's all really. How you do it is up to you. But start with point (1).
 
"The Distributors"... where the heck is their office? I'd like to send over a basket of booze or something. I get you, especially around the festivals. As far as I can tell from here, for someone with a self produced film the festivals are the gatekeepers. I acted in a film a little over a year ago that was a lower budget deal from a reputable production company, certainly larger than my little concern, and they were really counting on Toronto or Sundance. They weren't selected for Sundance which really took the steam out of their efforts and they had some juice. They knew where they stood in the selection process. I don't remember any emails from Sundance regarding my last short. I think they missed the deadline for Toronto, not sure. Like my movie shooting in June, hopefully, it wasn't one that would be an indie darling. It was funny as hell but I think sometimes that you have to make something that pleases the cognescenti or that is considered "moving the cinema forward." You know? Anyway, I agree that the festivals might judge a film as not great that might appeal to a wider, less "sophisticated" audience.

It's got to be good.. that's for sure and I think you do have to promote like crazy. OldCorpse, could you say something more about the "trade shows?"

I also know a producer with 2 good sized movies with name actors that never got distribution but she made back their investment in DVD sales. The blog made a good point about that, that you never hear about those movies except from the people who made them promoting them. So there is a good point in that list there, I think. Actually I think they are still working on getting distribution for the second one.
 
Last edited:
Oldcorpse, really disagree with you on your post a few up from this one. Given that I posted the video, not a surprise I suppose. The fact is, the big guys own distribution and make every effort to keep the little guys out. And if a little guy happens to make some progress, they get offered the opportunity for a bigger audience at a very low price. That's how it was 20 years ago. That's how it is today.

People have self-published books (and less so music and film) for many, many years. But VERY few self-publishing/distributing people ever got anywhere with it. Absolutely, without a doubt, the internet has made self-publishing/distrobution MUCH easier and cheaper. And the costs of indie production have dropped dramatically. But as many people on these boards can probably attest to, none of this has made it any easier to actually break through. More ways to make and distribute, but also MANY more people trying to make and distribute. Where are all the indie films on Amazon and Netflix? How many people on this board have ever paid anything to buy a digital download of an indie film? (I use the members of this board as an example because one would think we would be among the bigger consumers of indie film. Yet there are very few threads here that actually discuss indie films.)

I know a lot of people on these boards like to think they can't learn anything from two old producers talking about film financing 20 years ago, but the industry really hasn't changed all that much since then. Maybe some people can't see (or don't want to see) how the big studios impact small indie producers and films. But they do.

I'd encourage people who want to learn more about the issue to read some of Edward Jay Epstein's books, like Hollywood Economist or The Big Picture. Or if $10 is too much, maybe check out his site? A few short quotes from Amazon's page on the Hollywood Economist:
Praise for The Hollywood Economist

"The answer to [the] mysteries of modern-day film financing can be found in The Hollywood Economist, Edward Jay Epstein's latest foray into the seamy underbelly of Hollywood spreadsheets."
—The Wall Street Journal


"[A] terrific job.... There's fun to be had in knowing specifics, and Epstein
 offers plenty."
—Entertainment Weekly

Praise for Edward Jay Epstein's The Big Picture


"A rich adventure that will change the way you look at movies."
—BusinessWeek


"Edward Jay Epstein is here to tell us that when it comes to Hollywood these days, we've got it all wrong."
—The Washington Post Book World


"One of the virtues of The Big Picture is Mr. Epstein's astonishing access to numbers that movie studios go to great lengths to keep secret....A groundbreaking work that explains the inner workings of the game."
—The Wall Street Journal


"Hollywood has needed one of these for a long time--a user's manuel. This one could not be more complete....[Grade] A."
—Entertainment Weekly


“In his adroit charting of the confidence flow between the various entities and eras Mr. Epstein kicks up a lot of little surprises. . . Edward Jay Epstein is quite good.”
—Larry McMurtry, The New York Review of Books


“. . . [A] valuable education for those seeking to enter and under- stand the entertainment industry. . . . Factually impressive.”

—Joel Hirschhorn, Variety
Click to expand...
 
keylight, all that stuff is old, old, old, old, old hat. Everyone knows this already, and have known for decades - at least since Eddie Murphy made the comment about net points being "monkey points". We get it. We got it back in the day. We all know it. It ain't nothin' new.

But of what relevance is the world of a producer who puts together Forrest Gump with major studios to us, indies here in 2013? You may as well talk about the weather conditions on Mars. Nobody on this board is putting together projects with Jack Nickelson, Spielberg, Zemeckis, Tom Hank etc. Hello!

We know all about the world of the producer of Jaws (one of the guys in the video), we've heard the same "hollywood accounting" stories since forever. Please.

No new light is being shed for us indies here when you post stuff from 20 years ago which we all know about.

Our problems are not how to make money from films with Tom Hanks and Zemeckis as gross participants. Helloooo! Our problems are how to make back a buck on self-financed movies with completely unknown actors or B or D or E list has beens. That's our problem here in 2013.

The studios and distributors are not "keeping the little guys out". What's keeping the little guys out is that we have no name recognition, so audiences have no reason to flock to us. If I have Tom Hanks in my movie, then the lofty problems outlined in the video become relevant to me - but the audience has a chance to look at my product because "Tom Hanks!". But I don't. And I don't have Tom Hanks not because "the big guys" are denying me Tom Hanks. Hellooo! My problem - every indies problem - is how does the audience decide to see my movie. They won't hear about it because I have name actors. That's not the universe we indies operate in. The "big guys" are not blocking me from Tom Hanks.

The audience can only see my product if I get distribution. There's a million distributors. Even if Paramount or WB were to "keep out" the indies as competition (and they don't - Paranormal Activities was distributed by a major studio), there's a MILLION other distribution channels. The problem is that not many have pull with exhibitors. Why? Because exhibitors make money from showing product that the audience wants to see. And the audience wants to see Tom Hanks. That's not the "big guys" fault. It's the laws of the market. Unknown quantities have a hard time breaking through. So you try to become a known quantity - create DEMAND. The PA guy did so by social media and word of mouth. Studios didn't shut him out - in fact joined him, because why not... they're in it for the money too, and don't care who brings it.

Create DEMAND - however you can. It's hard when you have few assets. The "big guys" do it by having Tom Hanks, by advertising and by marketing. We don't have Tom Hanks. We have to live by our wits.

And gross/net and hollywood accounting is of no relevance to us, and the world of those clips has no relevance to us. We got financing covered - or not - all by our lonesome selves. So financing is not a conversation that's relevant to us when you reference Tom Hanks.

Make a product - however you can... realistically from your own sources of money, usually your own wallet. Period. That's production. And now your problems start. So you have a movie. Now what? It's not the big guys who are holding you down.
 
OldCorpse said:
The audience can only see my product if I get distribution. There's a million distributors. Even if Paramount or WB were to "keep out" the indies as competition (and they don't - Paranormal Activities was distributed by a major studio), there's a MILLION other distribution channels. The problem is that not many have pull with exhibitors.
Click to expand...

You make some really good points in your reply. I do agree with some of what you're saying in your last reply, although I'll note that there are actually a lot of people on these boards who DON'T know all this "old, old, old, old, old hat" stuff. Many, many, many new people who just don't know how this stuff works. Old to you, new to others. And this old, old, old stuff is still current, current, current in terms of how it works. And it isn't just about the big films that have big names attached, because the domination of the screen by the big guys to show the big name stuff really distorts and limits what is available for the little guy.

As for the issue of distribution, you're absolutely right that there are millions of channels and that not many have pull. And that's the crux of the problem. So why don't they have pull with exhibitors? You wrote:
OldCorpse said:
Because exhibitors make money from showing product that the audience wants to see. And the audience wants to see Tom Hanks. That's not the "big guys" fault. It's the laws of the market.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with you more. Does demand driving product or does product drive demand? Understanding, as you do, that so much of a film's costs is related to marketing, should help to identify the answer to this. A studio that spends $100M making a film is going to spend another $40M (or more) to market the film in order to drive demand. And with that kind of money put into a film, there is a strong desire to make not a one-off film, but a film franchise. Marketing drives demand AND product. If you've got a really great script and can get a great cast and crew together, but your film isn't marketable by THOSE standards, then good luck getting it made or distributed. Why do people want Tom Hanks? Or Twilgiht? Or another awful superhero movie? Because that's the diet the studios have marketed and fed to people for years. The distribution channels are clogged full of this stuff, leaving very little room for other work that people might enjoy. It's a business, and the first rule of business isn't know your market, it's make your market.

In my opinion - and getting back to the OP and first few posts on France and Canada - if there was a bit more funding for the arts, there would be more opportunity to find audiences for the good stuff that's getting produced but not seen.

Imagine if every city in the US with a population of 100,000 or more had a budget of $1M/year to run an open air summer film program that featured a program of films by small indie producers. (According to Wikipedia, there are 285 such cities as of 2011). The cost to the US tax payer would be under $1/year. You could run films 12 weeks each year, 2 nights per week, and 4 to 6 short films per night to create a nice 2 hour program. Of course, bigger cities would have higher costs to operated something like this, but they would have bigger audiences too, and smaller cities would offset with much lower costs. Maybe charge a small admission fee, like $1 - more for marketing purposes really, but I could see the money being pooled and distributed to the filmmakers as a film rental fee (not a lot of money, but something)

So, running the numbers.... 285 x 12 x 2 x 6 = 41,040 screenings. Maybe each film gets shown in 20 locations. That's 2,052 films seen by thousands of people. Of course, the big guys would hate it. They would fight it tooth and nail, claim it to be an inappropriate intrusion into the marketplace by the government. They would argue that it cuts into the number of people who will go to the theater. What it might do though is get people who stopped going to see movies to try going again. It might help a few indie films get noticed, become popular, gain a foothold. Could actually lead to exhibitors finding room for more actual indie films. Such a thing could actually help everyone.

$1 per person, per year. A whole summer of free or very low cost movies. Perfect for a date. Perfect for a family picnic. Great for artists and indies.

Won't happen. Can't happen. Not here. Not in these times. Even though something like this should happen.
 
I'm afraid you've muddled things terribly by bringing in a bunch of stuff that expands the discussion way beyond the point I was addressing, so this will be my last post on the subject, and you can have the last word. How advisable it is to have public tax money spent to establish a venue for independent film is a separate discussion, and as it can veer into politics (which is forbidden by the TOS here), I am not going to address other than to say that it is not a bad idea in that the government already supports the development of art, though probably on a much smaller scale than what you outlined ($1 per person a year is A LOT - when you start adding all the "worthy" causes that "only" cost $1 per year per person, soon taxes would be at 100%). But that's a separate issue.

In essence you are joining the age-old argument about what drives what - does supply drive demand, or does demand drive supply in media consumption (and generally). This has been argued for decades by hundreds of experts and we are not going to be able to add much that's NEW to this conversation, and I have no desire to re-hash old arguments. Supply--->Demand or Demand--->Supply - truth is probably a bit of both, but really it doesn't do much for your position, unless it was 100% supply controlling demand, and that's simply not the case. Studios (content providers) cannot control demand - they may affect it at the margins, but are far, far, far from control. If that were not so, they wouldn't be repeatedly caught flat-footed by changing culture and changing demand. Famously, the studios completely lost the feeling for what the DEMAND is from the audience in the 60's and early 70's - and lost a lot of the mono/oligopoly of content creation and fresh blood came in and supplied the demand that studios were too clueless to supply on their own. If it was all about "we give you the product and you're gonna like it, you have no choice", then they would never lose control. But they did, and regularly do.

What is the greatest dream of most indies? Is to become HUGE and break in. By definition that comes from the outside. Not from the studios. Indies break new ground, and then move to the studios and then studios supply the "new" demand. Until somebody else turns up and does it again. And again. And again. Maybe even you, or I, or someone on this board. It is up to us. Studios are mostly followers. If they thought they could make a buck by doing exactly the opposite programming from what they do, they'd do THAT. They're not prejudiced as to the sources of money, believe me. Except maybe prejudiced toward what they think will get the m the most green. They're open to ANYBODY who can make them a buck. Including indies. They don't care if you're indie or if you're windy. They care: can you make money for them? If yes, they'll distribute you.

Yes, marketing matters. But whose fault is it that you don't have the $ to market? The "big guys"? You don't have the money to produce and market cars or airplanes either, but that's not because Toyota and Boeing are "keeping you out". You're small fry. You must survive by your wits. You market with $0, like the PA guy did. Or you remain unknown. Tough. But not really the fault of the "big guys".

Sadly the audience doesn't clamor for product they don't know. In some ways it's rational, not irrational. Why do they go see a Tom Hanks movie? Not just because "the big guys" made Tom Hanks a marketable brand. But because Tom Hanks can make a viewer enjoy a film the way Joe Schmuck The Unknown Actor cannot. Most A-list actors are A-list because they SELL, not because they're marketed. Anyone who has worked on an indie film with hopeless actors understand this. It's the other way around - not "money made Tom Hanks a brand", but "Tom Hanks is a brand because HE MAKES MONEY". Joe Schmuck The Unknown Actor is a worse performer than Tom Hanks. So how does that relate to audience demand? Well, if you are faced with two restaurants - one is a known brand that delivers content you've enjoyed before (Tom Hanks burger) - and the other features Mystery Meat Joe Schmuck - where do you think the audience will spend their $20? It takes a lot of money, or time to pick a product. You're gonna pick the sure thing. Can't really blame them. And they'll keep doing that... unless you give them a reason to pick your Mystery Meat - clever word of mouth and social media marketing sold PA to the audience and CREATED DEMAND.

Everyone is dealt a hand in life. Some are dealt a great hand and born with a silver spoon in their mouths, nepotism is alive and well. So what? That's life. Some will be born with a bad hand - but they play their cards cleverly. You're an indie. You didn't luck out to be born the son/daughter of FAMOUS MOVIE PERSON X. That's life. There's nothing anyone can do about that - go petition whoever made this world. All you can do is play your cards as well as you can. If you have talent, the work ethic and a big pinch of luck, you'll make it - and make it much bigger than the son/daughter of FAMOUS MOVIE PERSON X. Because in the end it is the audience that decides. The world is full of people who had huge advantages, but whose product was rejected by the buying public. In the end, it is the customer who always decides and is the final arbiter of what succeeds. Otherwise, John Carter would have been a hit.

But I will say this in some agreement with you. There's one practice that I think should be outlawed - bundling deals. That's when a distributor demands an exhibitor take a bunch of loser content if they want that one big hit, because that really does soak up the screen time away from indies. It's anti-comptetitive. Of course, ultimately, the market will find a way around it - and exhibitors who don't have enough good product will find themselves outflanked by other channels such as the internet. Sometimes it take a long time for alternative channels to appear. Now one can have an argument as to whether the government ought to intervene by regulation (outlaw bundling) or leave it to the market. There are good arguments on both sides, and it's always specific to a particular case. But that's a separate discussion.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
I'm afraid you've muddled things terribly by bringing in a bunch of stuff that expands the discussion way beyond the point I was addressing, so this will be my last post on the subject, and you can have the last word. How advisable it is to have public tax money spent to establish a venue for independent film is a separate discussion, and as it can veer into politics (which is forbidden by the TOS here), I am not going to address other than to say that it is not a bad idea in that the government already supports the development of art, though probably on a much smaller scale than what you outlined ($1 per person a year is A LOT - when you start adding all the "worthy" causes that "only" cost $1 per year per person, soon taxes would be at 100%). But that's a separate issue.

In essence you are joining the age-old argument about what drives what - does supply drive demand, or does demand drive supply in media consumption (and generally). This has been argued for decades by hundreds of experts and we are not going to be able to add much that's NEW to this conversation, and I have no desire to re-hash old arguments. Supply--->Demand or Demand--->Supply - truth is probably a bit of both, but really it doesn't do much for your position, unless it was 100% supply controlling demand, and that's simply not the case. Studios (content providers) cannot control demand - they may affect it at the margins, but are far, far, far from control. If that were not so, they wouldn't be repeatedly caught flat-footed by changing culture and changing demand. Famously, the studios completely lost the feeling for what the DEMAND is from the audience in the 60's and early 70's - and lost a lot of the mono/oligopoly of content creation and fresh blood came in and supplied the demand that studios were too clueless to supply on their own. If it was all about "we give you the product and you're gonna like it, you have no choice", then they would never lose control. But they did, and regularly do.

What is the greatest dream of most indies? Is to become HUGE and break in. By definition that comes from the outside. Not from the studios. Indies break new ground, and then move to the studios and then studios supply the "new" demand. Until somebody else turns up and does it again. And again. And again. Maybe even you, or I, or someone on this board. It is up to us. Studios are mostly followers. If they thought they could make a buck by doing exactly the opposite programming from what they do, they'd do THAT. They're not prejudiced as to the sources of money, believe me. Except maybe prejudiced toward what they think will get the m the most green. They're open to ANYBODY who can make them a buck. Including indies. They don't care if you're indie or if you're windy. They care: can you make money for them? If yes, they'll distribute you.

Yes, marketing matters. But whose fault is it that you don't have the $ to market? The "big guys"? You don't have the money to produce and market cars or airplanes either, but that's not because Toyota and Boeing are "keeping you out". You're small fry. You must survive by your wits. You market with $0, like the PA guy did. Or you remain unknown. Tough. But not really the fault of the "big guys".

Sadly the audience doesn't clamor for product they don't know. In some ways it's rational, not irrational. Why do they go see a Tom Hanks movie? Not just because "the big guys" made Tom Hanks a marketable brand. But because Tom Hanks can make a viewer enjoy a film the way Joe Schmuck The Unknown Actor cannot. Most A-list actors are A-list because they SELL, not because they're marketed. Anyone who has worked on an indie film with hopeless actors understand this. It's the other way around - not "money made Tom Hanks a brand", but "Tom Hanks is a brand because HE MAKES MONEY". Joe Schmuck The Unknown Actor is a worse performer than Tom Hanks. So how does that relate to audience demand? Well, if you are faced with two restaurants - one is a known brand that delivers content you've enjoyed before (Tom Hanks burger) - and the other features Mystery Meat Joe Schmuck - where do you think the audience will spend their $20? It takes a lot of money, or time to pick a product. You're gonna pick the sure thing. Can't really blame them. And they'll keep doing that... unless you give them a reason to pick your Mystery Meat - clever word of mouth and social media marketing sold PA to the audience and CREATED DEMAND.

Everyone is dealt a hand in life. Some are dealt a great hand and born with a silver spoon in their mouths, nepotism is alive and well. So what? That's life. Some will be born with a bad hand - but they play their cards cleverly. You're an indie. You didn't luck out to be born the son/daughter of FAMOUS MOVIE PERSON X. That's life. There's nothing anyone can do about that - go petition whoever made this world. All you can do is play your cards as well as you can. If you have talent, the work ethic and a big pinch of luck, you'll make it - and make it much bigger than the son/daughter of FAMOUS MOVIE PERSON X. Because in the end it is the audience that decides. The world is full of people who had huge advantages, but whose product was rejected by the buying public. In the end, it is the customer who always decides and is the final arbiter of what succeeds. Otherwise, John Carter would have been a hit.

But I will say this in some agreement with you. There's one practice that I think should be outlawed - bundling deals. That's when a distributor demands an exhibitor take a bunch of loser content if they want that one big hit, because that really does soak up the screen time away from indies. It's anti-comptetitive. Of course, ultimately, the market will find a way around it - and exhibitors who don't have enough good product will find themselves outflanked by other channels such as the internet. Sometimes it take a long time for alternative channels to appear. Now one can have an argument as to whether the government ought to intervene by regulation (outlaw bundling) or leave it to the market. There are good arguments on both sides, and it's always specific to a particular case. But that's a separate discussion.
Click to expand...

Your points are well taken. Perhaps some day a bunch DVXUsers can get together and solve all of the industries problems over a beer! :beer:
 
All marketing does is let you know something exists. Marketing doesn't make you want something that is not good. If marketing could make people want something then marketing could get people to go see John Carter at the theater even though it's terrible and just a bunch of empty CGI.

Why did Birdemic get a distribution deal and get a limited release? It's a terrible, terrible movie. Think John Carter with less story, worse acting, and CGI that could be done better by a 12 year old with After Effects (No offense to 12 year olds with After Effects, most of them do a much better job than me).

The director/producer entered Canne but didn't get in. So he went to Canne anyway and pimped his film on street corners. People saw it and realized it was so bad, it was art. It's the kind of bad that you can't make if you try to make something bad on purpose. You can only make something this bad if you truly think you are making a master piece but actually have no clue of what you are doing. You know, Ed Wood bad.

People didn't go see Birdemic because it was marketed. They went to see it because people appreciate movies that are so bad they are art. The marketing just let people know that such a movie existed and was available for them to watch.


The problem isn't marketing. The problem is you can't make something as bad as birdemic even if you try.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top