When the stars are not aligned

[Chamber005]

Just thought this would be an interesting topic of discussion.

I was watching a movie, some low-budget horror flick with Britney Murphy, and as I was watching the previews I realized that BECAUSE the previews for the movies I was seeing all had name "talent" in them I had little desire to see them. I saw the previews and felt that because they had name talent the movie probably isn't that good.

Now certainly we've always assumed people thought differently. We thought, "If they see that some television or b-movie star is in the movie, they'll be more apt to give it a look." But what I've found over the last, say, five years has been that people seem to be responding to whether or not the movie is in the collective consciousness WITHOUT any name talent behind it. If I've heard of a movie (Ink or Paranormal Activity, for instance, or maybe a show like The Guild or a foreign flick like Waltz with Bashir) that has no stars or name talent actors attached to it and I still know about it, the thought process is "Well, it must be good then," simply because I've heard of it.

So leaving distributors out of the equation for a minute as I personally feel we're about 10 years off from all Indie filmmakers creating their own group of distribution companies or film-specific distribution companies becoming the norm, if you had 20K in your budget to hire a known actor or you could alternatively use that 20K on a mass marketing campaign, knowing the current climate, which would you be more apt to spend that 20K on?

 

[Gary Huff]

I think most known actors are cast because they bring money to the project. No way would I pay $20,000 for an actor, name or no name. But if hiring an actor at $20k means your budget goes up $50k, then it's a no-brainer.

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

$20k is pretty cheap for an actor, especially for a name. 60 days at 800 bucks a day on a SAG film they're making almost $50k. So 20k for how many days?

 

[Chamber005]

I think most known actors are cast because they bring money to the project. No way would I pay $20,000 for an actor, name or no name. But if hiring an actor at $20k means your budget goes up $50k, then it's a no-brainer.

No, I get that. But for instance in the case of this (bad) horror flick I just watched, "Deadline". In the behind-the-scenes stuff the first time director said that his original plan had been to shoot the whole thing on a DVCAM for about 50K. This thing had Brittany Murphy, Marc Blucas and Thora Birch and STILL couldn't get a theatrical release so far as I can tell -- and none of the actors were producers on the thing (which would be in the vein of what you're talking about). From the looks of it the producer who came in and funneled money into the project went out and hired these actors.

I've no idea how much the movie has grossed in rental business, but I'd be willing to bet that if the producer would have decided to get rid of the stars on this thing and brought the budget down closer to what the filmmaker's initial ambition had been and would have spent money on advertising instead of star talent, percentage-wise, profits would have been much larger.

There was just an article in Newsweek that talked about the "role" of Celebrity for movie stars has in most cases actually surpassed their roles as actors in movies -- to the point that the movies they appear in are now actually just viewed as additional content in the spectacle that is their Celebrity. If that is indeed true, then Celebrity could actually start to HARM film by marginalizing it. Even if you look at Deadline specifically, very little that was written about the film had to do with the film, it was the life stories of Brittany Murphy and Thora Birch and what this movie might mean to their Celebrity.

So if this is the way the world and the market is starting to bend, I think it behooves indie filmmakers to actually step away from Celebrity lest they potentially harm content.

As our entertainment society becomes more fixated on the reality and not its artistic interpretations, it will be the narrative storyteller's position to force a greater divide between him/herself and the reality-based media and potentially even Celebrity if he/she wants his works to exist as the primary component for the work to flourish.

I don't mean that a person should never hire a famous actor, only that they should consider how that actor's Celebrity could actually do more harm than good to the PIECE (and that it may not be worth it since their Celebrity in the future might not necessarily mean larger profit margins).

Bottom line, if there is a movie with three "movie stars" in it that is not on the public's radar, chances are it sucks. If there is a movie with no stars in it that's on the public radar, chances are it's great. This has been happening again and again, year after year over the last decade. If things continue this way (and since the cost of working with film is no longer a requirement for a movie's success), we could see over the next 20 years the gradual fading of the "movie star". Oh sure, Celebrities will always exist, actors and otherwise, but as content flows more freely, as everyone with two nickles to rub together can assemble a 24p 1080p blu-ray with great actors, photographers and sound people, how long before the public starts to reject the actors who are Celebreties and asks that they stay out of their most important films?

 

[leepback]

For some reason the general viewing public prefer to see name actors on their screens. Me, I probably prefer to see someone I don't know take on a role (so long as they do a good job), because that way I don't have to suspend my disbelief in knowing that that person is merely acting.

Sure we all know it's pretend but I find it more believeable if I don't kow the actor as a real person. I especially hate it when name actors are cast as foreigners (compared to their real nationality) and put on fake accents. Hey if you want somebody that's French get a Frenchman. Same goes for Ruskies and all the others.

Of course I know I'm in the minority and that's not how the business works.....pity though.

 

[Gary Huff]

Yeah, I think there are those of us (myself included) who don't care if they recognize any of the actors. We just want a good movie. However, I'm willing to bet there have been a lot of sales/rentals of films simply because of actors names and/or faces on the cover of the DVD.

In essence, don't knock the effect a name actor can have on getting your film seen by the masses.

 

[Chamber005]

For some reason the general viewing public prefer to see name actors on their screens. Me, I probably prefer to see someone I don't know take on a role (so long as they do a good job), because that way I don't have to suspend my disbelief in knowing that that person is merely acting.

Sure we all know it's pretend but I find it more believeable if I don't kow the actor as a real person. I especially hate it when name actors are cast as foreigners (compared to their real nationality) and put on fake accents. Hey if you want somebody that's French get a Frenchman. Same goes for Ruskies and all the others.

Of course I know I'm in the minority and that's not how the business works.....pity though.

Well and my point isn't really about what viewers prefer, it's about what their growing perception is becoming (e.g. "This is a film I've never heard of who has someone famous in it. Must be crap.").

If things keep going the way they are in the upper ends of low-budget films, pretty soon seeing any star on a low budget film on an unpopular film will be a huge red flag to the potential viewer.

Soon I think the common Bluray-goer will be more apt to pick up a Bluray that has no one in it on the shelf next to blockbuster movies rather than pick up the low budget flick that has some random B star in it on the same shelf. People are starting to see the whole having a "name" in your movie is just a gimmick and does NOT mean that the movie will actually be any good (and is almost now assuring it will in fact not be any good).

If the viewer thinks you need a gimmick for them to see your movie, they're going to assume that your movie is no good. IMO

 

[Gary Huff]

If the viewer thinks you need a gimmick for them to see your movie, they're going to assume that your movie is no good. IMO

That may be how you feel about it, but I don't think Joe Public much agrees with you.

 

[Chamber005]

That may be how you feel about it, but I don't think Joe Public much agrees with you.

Well and I also think it's something that's going to take another decade of what's happened so far in the last decade to really start to come to fruition. Because I think Joe Public does very much agree with my stance that if a movie has a star in it that they've never heard of there's a better chance that it's crap than a movie with no star that they have heard of -- and if things continue the way they're going (and I'm sure that they will as distributors will still hang their hats on "name" talent until the day Celebrity eventually has nothing much to do with the arts), I can see Joe Public having an eventual decisively negative Pavlovian response to name talent in unknown pictures.

 

[Gary Huff]

Really? You've never heard this conversation go on before?

"Hey, we should see [Insert Random Movie Title]!".
"Yeah? Who's in it?"

 

[Chamber005]

Really? You've never heard this conversation go on before?

"Hey, we should see [Insert Random Movie Title]!".
"Yeah? Who's in it?"

No, I hear ya. I'm just saying that it's my experience that in business you can never worry about what works now, you always have to be thinking about what's going to work in the future.

I feel that because of the explosion of affordable HD, there is a trend starting with low-budget movies, and that trend appears to be that low budget movies with name actors who never appear in the public's pulse are worse than low-budget movies with no name talent that do.

I'm saying that I believe, percentage-wise, the trend may even be relevant to profits.

Profits and public opinion are what start (non-manufactured) trends in business.

Thus, if the public opinion continues to lean towards "Name actor in movie I've never heard of = bad", and movies that cost 100K to make with no name talent continue to turn a larger PERCENTAGE profit than their 1 million+ bretheren, the trend could easily formulate "Name Talent Equals Lesser Creative Product and Worse Percentage Profit".

And I think phrases like the one you mentioned could start to evaporate from the public consciousness, being replaced by, "Where did you hear about it?"

Just as social networking sites are starting to replace critics, I think that, because of affordability, marketing is starting to over-shadow Celebrity as it pertains specifically to film.

 

[Gary Huff]

Thus, if the public opinion continues to lean towards "Name actor in movie I've never heard of = bad"

Can you show me an example of the public leaning towards this line of thinking?

 

[Barry_Green]

Frankly, I think the whole situation can be summed up in a lot simpler way: people are far more likely to trust peer reviews than they are to trust anything else. So if everyone says "you gotta see this", people go see it (even if it's awful, vis a vis "Blair Witch Project" and "Paranormal Activity").

I don't think the presence or absence of stars is no longer the sole determining factor, much as it was even 10 or 20 years ago.

Simple fact is, people have always needed something to hook them into seeing or paying for something. They always need to have "heard of" or "heard about" something. They always need outside validation before they buy in.

How do books sell? Look at the cover of a book -- if it's from Stephen King, it'll have the title in little six-point font and Stephen King's name covering half the cover. If it's from Dr. Phil, you'll see a massive picture of Dr. Phil on the cover, and maybe the title somewhere. If you don't have either of those, but it's been on the NY Times Bestseller list, you'll see a big huge sticker stuck on the front proclaiming it as such.

How do movies sell? With a massive ad campaign and showing you familiarity through one of several avenues: either a) a licensed property you know (think about comic book films here), or b) actors you know and love and would pay to see (tom hanks, sandra bullock, etc) or c) through outside testimonial (reviews).

If you have any one of those, you're probably good. If you don't have any of them, you're dead.

So if you've got the "Lord of the Rings" name, you don't need name actors. You need good actors, but not big names. And you don't even need good reviews; heck, look at Transformers 2, a horrible horrible film but huge box office. So having a familiar property is a huge leg up in getting audiences interested in seeing your picture.

If you don't have a familiar property, then you typically go with a big name, because there are many people out there who will go see "the new Harrison Ford movie", or "the new Jackie Chan movie" etc.

If you don't have a familiar property or familiar names, then you need *amazing* reviews and/or a backstory to get anyone to see it. Roger Ebert can do it, or a groundswell of grassroots marketing can do it, but you gotta have something. Rodriguez sold his body to a drug-testing lab to raise money for El Mariachi; that story made for a great backstory, and the fact the film was pretty good too made for a groundswell of support.

If you don't have any of those things, what are you left with? You can try the old Hollywood standby of *massive* advertising to force the images into the public's collective consciousness. But that takes unholy amounts of money, and frankly, that one's not working so well anymore; I know for a fact that the more heavily advertised a film is, the less likely I am to go see it, because I trust reviewers much more than advertisers, and so does the public.

Even if you have massive advertising and a great name, if the reviews are bad, you can be sunk pretty quickly. Look at Pluto Nash for an example.

So in the end, killer reviews are worth more than anything else. A groundswell of support and fantastic reviews will go further than just about anything, as far as getting your film seen.

 

[Chamber005]

Can you show me an example of the public leaning towards this line of thinking?

Well without polls (and even with them it's difficult) you can only prove context, not opinion. The context of the trend has to do with the what would be insighting the opinion, and that's what I keep expressing: If movies with stars in them that are not in the public view continue to be critically worse than movies with no stars in them but that are in the public view, that will continue to formulate the trend I'm talking about.

No poll exists for it, but I'm just about as positive as I can be that if we did a national poll that asked:

Would you rather see a movie that you've never heard of with a star in it?

or

Would you rather see a movie you've heard of but that doesn't have a star in it?

Most people, I believe, would pick the latter, thus dictating that MARKETING is fast becoming more important than CELEBRITY.

And further, I think a philosphical debate can be made for Celebrity actually HARMING the integrity of a film, especially if the above poll did indeed favor the second choice.

 

[Chamber005]

Frankly, I think the whole situation can be summed up in a lot simpler way: people are far more likely to trust peer reviews than they are to trust anything else. So if everyone says "you gotta see this", people go see it (even if it's awful, vis a vis "Blair Witch Project" and "Paranormal Activity").

I don't think the presence or absence of stars is no longer the sole determining factor, much as it was even 10 or 20 years ago.

Simple fact is, people have always needed something to hook them into seeing or paying for something. They always need to have "heard of" or "heard about" something. They always need outside validation before they buy in.

How do books sell? Look at the cover of a book -- if it's from Stephen King, it'll have the title in little six-point font and Stephen King's name covering half the cover. If it's from Dr. Phil, you'll see a massive picture of Dr. Phil on the cover, and maybe the title somewhere. If you don't have either of those, but it's been on the NY Times Bestseller list, you'll see a big huge sticker stuck on the front proclaiming it as such.

How do movies sell? With a massive ad campaign and showing you familiarity through one of several avenues: either a) a licensed property you know (think about comic book films here), or b) actors you know and love and would pay to see (tom hanks, sandra bullock, etc) or c) through outside testimonial (reviews).

If you have any one of those, you're probably good. If you don't have any of them, you're dead.

So if you've got the "Lord of the Rings" name, you don't need name actors. You need good actors, but not big names. And you don't even need good reviews; heck, look at Transformers 2, a horrible horrible film but huge box office. So having a familiar property is a huge leg up in getting audiences interested in seeing your picture.

If you don't have a familiar property, then you typically go with a big name, because there are many people out there who will go see "the new Harrison Ford movie", or "the new Jackie Chan movie" etc.

If you don't have a familiar property or familiar names, then you need *amazing* reviews and/or a backstory to get anyone to see it. Roger Ebert can do it, or a groundswell of grassroots marketing can do it, but you gotta have something. Rodriguez sold his body to a drug-testing lab to raise money for El Mariachi; that story made for a great backstory, and the fact the film was pretty good too made for a groundswell of support.

If you don't have any of those things, what are you left with? You can try the old Hollywood standby of *massive* advertising to force the images into the public's collective consciousness. But that takes unholy amounts of money, and frankly, that one's not working so well anymore; I know for a fact that the more heavily advertised a film is, the less likely I am to go see it, because I trust reviewers much more than advertisers, and so does the public.

Even if you have massive advertising and a great name, if the reviews are bad, you can be sunk pretty quickly. Look at Pluto Nash for an example.

So in the end, killer reviews are worth more than anything else. A groundswell of support and fantastic reviews will go further than just about anything, as far as getting your film seen.

Right, and my position isn't that I'm arguing any of that, I'm only saying that marketing is fast becoming more important than Celebrity especially as it pertains to independent film.

It's also my personal opinion (and is an opinion nearly echoed in the most recent Newsweek), that in the future Celebrity will actually begin to do more harm than good to the integrity of the film in question. Even Stephen King's own Celebrity took a huge toll on the (perceived) integrity of his works early on. But, like with King, I think that in the near future a movie will be seen as good or great IN SPITE OF having Celebrity in the mix.

Just as musicians became movie stars so soon will the people who are famous for nothing become the front person of a lot of films (indie and otherwise). If and when that happens the films the Celebrity is in will be further marginalized which will lead to our best and brightest filmmakers and writers stepping away from Celebrities (actors or otherwise) to ensure that the integrity of their work remains intact.

People in a position to sell a product are always the last to give up what it is they know how to sell. Distributors and production companies will do their best to keep the status quo until they cannot push against the tide anymore.

Remember, anything (and that means ANYTHING) that hinders the story (which is the point of the film) needs to be eliminated. I feel that someday that will also include the inclusion of Celebrity.

 

[Barry_Green]

That's as may be. I don't think Paris Hilton's film career was all that spectacular.

But the point remains that you're going to have to have something the audience connects with. And if you remove familiar actors from the mix, and you don't have the budget to buy a licensed property or a massive advertising campaign, then that leaves you with three possible fates:
1) Make such an overwhelmingly powerfully entertaining product that audiences fall all over themselves to order their friends to go see it, and reviewers give it a massively high ranking on the tomatometer (which is pretty much impossible to do, and happens extremely extremely extremely rarely), or

2) Be prepared to work full time selling and selling and selling and selling and selling, doing your own four-walling, radio promotins, facebooking and myspacing, twittering, whatever and wherever, using your own personal labor to replace what the advertising money would have bought, or

3) Get used to obscurity.

 

[Barry_Green]

Remember, anything (and that means ANYTHING) that hinders the story (which is the point of the film) needs to be eliminated.

That only applies in a Pollyanna world. Only if you could totally and entirely separate the "show" away from the "business" of show business.

If you're a one-person filmmaking machine, and you do it as a hobby, and you have a day job (or are independently wealthy), and if you do everything yourself so that you never spend a penny on the film, then maybe your statement is practical.

But if you actually have to spend money to hire people or buy materials or supplies, and you need the film to make at least its money back plus your time, then that notion is completely unrealistic. The point of a film, from a producer's perspective, is to be an entity that earns enough money that it pays for itself and pays the time and energy put into it, so that it becomes a self-sustaining business model.

If that means that two actors audition, and one of them is absolutely perfect for the role and gives a genius reading, but nobody's ever heard of her... and the other actor does a good-enough job, but just so happens to also be Miley Cyrus with 30 million rabid fans, then Miley Cyrus gets hired. And if the film isn't quite as good as it could have been, but it makes its money back and more, then that's the way it has to be.

 

[Chamber005]

That only applies in a Pollyanna world. Only if you could totally and entirely separate the "show" away from the "business" of show business.

If you're a one-person filmmaking machine, and you do it as a hobby, and you have a day job (or are independently wealthy), and if you do everything yourself so that you never spend a penny on the film, then maybe your statement is practical.

But if you actually have to spend money to hire people or buy materials or supplies, and you need the film to make at least its money back plus your time, then that notion is completely unrealistic. The point of a film, from a producer's perspective, is to be an entity that earns enough money that it pays for itself and pays the time and energy put into it, so that it becomes a self-sustaining business model.

If that means that two actors audition, and one of them is absolutely perfect for the role and gives a genius reading, but nobody's ever heard of her... and the other actor does a good-enough job, but just so happens to also be Miley Cyrus with 30 million rabid fans, then Miley Cyrus gets hired. And if the film isn't quite as good as it could have been, but it makes its money back and more, then that's the way it has to be.

Yeah, but the 20 million that would go to Miley could have gone to the marketing. I just think that if an indie filmmaker has the choice to spend a large amount on B-level stars or could instead spend that money on marketing, it behooves the filmmaker to spend the money on marketing.

Also, I think times they are a changin. I think you're going to see more and more filmmakers becoming producers as technology continues to supply cheaper and cheaper ways to create movies -- especially movies that have no need to go theatrical in order to be a huge success.

I've cited them before, but The Guild, to me, is a perfect example of a bunch of no-name people putting together a concept and employing niche marketing as their number one tool for success.

Certainly making a movie that needs to play in theatres in order to recoup its budget is an animal that probably won't change anytime soon. The big blockbusters need all the things you mentioned working on all cylinders in order to hit the billion dollar mark (which, ten years from now, could quite possibly be what a blockbuster demands in order to be successful).

But for the privately funded stuff, I do think that, like with so much theatre that takes place away from the huge houses, content and marketing are going to get more and more imperative for the indie filmmaker.

Right now online critics and word-of-mouth matter. Ten years from now they may be IMPERATIVE for an indie movie to be a success -- specifcally because there will continue to be more and more people making low budget movies on their HD cams and printing discs through Createspace (or some similar source) -- whereas having a low level Celebrity in your film isn't going to help (and could even hurt) your chances of creating an effective and widely talked about marketing campaign.

Thus the filmmaker who has the best (or hires the best person with) marketing sense will probably be the more successful than the filmmaker who was able to get a B-star in their flick.

I think that putting CONTENT and STORY first and always first in the indie market is soon going to be more important than it's ever been in the past. Used to be you could hire some television personality and a Quentin reject to star in your movie for a few minutes and it garaunteed you an audience. But soon I think people will actually start to purposefully AVOID those movies because they have the Celebrity gimmick.

It's like the old bait-and-switch routine. As distributors and production houses continue to force indie filmmakers to bait film-goers with Celebrity and genre motifs, film-goers will eventually start to not respond anymore, at which time, I think, marketing and uniqueness of vision will become the new Celebrity in film.

Again, I think it will not be, "Who's in it?" it will be, "Where did you hear about it?"

And as the business of PROFITING from a movie (which could very well have more to do with marketing and ALWAYS has to do with profit margins) moves further from the actual PROCESS of making the movie itself (re: Celebrity inclusion), the indie filmmaker will be in a position to not have to play with gimmicks or lean towards specific genres but will instead be SOLELY worried about critical acclaim (e.g. story and its execution).

Critical acclaim and marketing is, I think, all that will matter in the future of indie film. The only gimmicks will be being done by the ad men, not the filmmaker and his/her producer.

 

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, but the 20 million that would go to Miley could have gone to the marketing.

Hiring Miley *is* marketing. It's the only reason you'd do it.

Why would you hire Miley Cyrus? Because there are 30 million* teenage girls out there who will go see anything she's in. So if she costs you 20 million dollars, but delivers 80 million in box office, then it was a wise marketing choice.

What's the point of any marketing? To get people to shell out dough to see your picture. So you can spend the money on ads, or on famous actors with a built-in draw, or on a licensed property... but it's *all* marketing.

movies that have no need to go theatrical in order to be a huge success.

Movies don't need to go theatrical in order to be a huge success. Theatrical is largely a money-loser anyway. But people do it because it's marketing. A theatrical release has historically been a large advertising campaign for the DVD release. Think about it -- if you go to Blockbuster and see two films on the shelf, one that you know was in theaters and one that you've *never* heard of, which are you going to pick up? Yep, the one you've heard of. So putting a film in theaters isn't any guarantee of making money, but it is a way to elevate the film's perceived value, which is -- marketing.

I've cited them before, but The Guild, to me, is a perfect example of a bunch of no-name people putting together a concept and employing niche marketing as their number one tool for success.

Nothing wrong with that at all. But it's all work you have to do. The need to build an audience is the same. You just have to figure out which way you're comfortable doing it -- you either have to spend a lot of money or a lot of time, but you have to work it either way.

Certainly making a movie that needs to play in theatres in order to recoup its budget is an animal that probably won't change anytime soon.

? Most movies lose big at the box office. Box office isn't a real revenue generator for any but a few select films, like Twilight or Titanic. Most others lose their shorts, and hope to recoup on DVD. And, on DVD, you're far more likely to buy or rent a film you've heard of, rather than one you haven't, and the theatrical release is a way for you to have heard of it.

But for the privately funded stuff, I do think that, like with so much theatre that takes place away from the huge houses, content and marketing are going to get more and more imperative for the indie filmmaker.

They're no more important now than they've ever been, I think you're just looking at it in a different way. The simple fact is that you have to connect with an audience somehow. And you'll do that through spending money on ads, or spending a tremendous amount of labor to build an audience, etc... or by making such an irresistible story that the audience does that work for you. But the burden is on you, the filmmaker, to crack that nut of audience acceptance.

Right now online critics and word-of-mouth matter. Ten years from now they may be IMPERATIVE for an indie movie to be a success

Agreed entirely, except I'd take it a step further -- they're *already* imperative for *any* movie to be a success. Exhibit A: Pluto Nash. Without online support, rottentomatoes, IMDB ratings, Yahoo movie ratings, Screenit reviews, and person-to-person positive reviews, any film is dead.

Which is why we've seen the shift recently to make-it-or-break-it weekends. It used to be that films could last in theaters for months and months, but now they get maybe a weekend, maybe two, before they're gone and done. WHy? Because now we end users can all communicate to each other quickly! It used to take three weeks for reviews to come out, but now we know within an hour of it opening, whether it's worth seeing! Which is why major film studios have taken to not even screening their duds for critics, because the critics might get a review out and kill their friday night opening. And if a film's bad, the friday night opening is *all* it's gonna get.

-- specifcally because there will continue to be more and more people making low budget movies on their HD cams and printing discs through Createspace (or some similar source) -- whereas having a low level Celebrity in your film isn't going to help (and could even hurt) your chances of creating an effective and widely talked about marketing campaign.

I disagree entirely that having a known actor in your film hurts it at all. It may not help, but it can't hurt unless the actor just does a really bad job. However, if your film isn't great, having the known actor won't help unless they bring their own audience (exhibit B: Miley Cyrus). And if you don't know what I mean when I keep bringing up Miley Cyrus, look at the numbers for her 3-D concert movie, it'll blow your mind. There we're talking about a movie that wasn't even a "movie" at all, it was just a concert experience, and it ruled the box office for weeks and weeks. Heck, look at The Hannah Montana Movie -- it was *terrible*, it has a 3.4 rating on IMDB, and even so, it did $32 million in its opening weekend, and $80 million box office. Even when it was lousy, tweens showed up in droves to see it.)

Thus the filmmaker who has the best (or hires the best person with) marketing sense will probably be the more successful than the filmmaker who was able to get a B-star in their flick.

If you're counting on some B-level star to build an audience for you, then yes, I agree 100%. On the other hand, if you're talking about a B-level star who brings his own following, like maybe Bruce Campbell in a campy horror movie, then I think that B-level star might be marketing dollars well spent.

Again, I think it will not be, "Who's in it?" it will be, "Where did you hear about it?"

There is a lot of validity here in what you're saying. No doubt whatsoever, grassroots marketing and social connectivity can serve to build an audience more effectively than having Parker Posey in your film. If all you were planning on to create your success was to put Lorenzo Lamas in your film, then yeah, those days of releasing a stinking turdbomb of a film and hoping Lorenzo Lamas' name would carry it to profitability, are pretty much over.

Critical acclaim and marketing is, I think, all that will matter in the future of indie film. The only gimmicks will be being done by the ad men, not the filmmaker and his/her producer.

Agreed 100% here. I just think you're way too easily dismissing the marketing aspect of having an actor who brings an audience with him/her.

*I made up that number, by the way.

 

[Barry_Green]

Okay, to bring it home:

All marketing has been about getting an audience to spend money to see your film. In the old days, you could throw millions of dollars at an ad campaign, and watch your film sit in the theaters for months raking in the dough. Heck, Titanic was in the theater for a YEAR -- and that was less than 20 years ago.

So why would someone want to see your film? Because it looks great in the trailers, and maybe because it has recognizable actors that they like.

But why would people *not* want to see your film? Ah, here's the social revolution and the key to everything. Years ago, if a film looked great in the ads, people would go. You could spend ten million dollars on ads, and actors, and whatnot, and know for pretty much a surety that you'd get an audience. But the social media revolution has given the people the power to cut that off at the knees! A marketer might put together a campaign that they expected to run for a couple of months, but man, if the film gets slammed in reviews, everyone will know about it instantly, nationwide, and worldwide. And all of a sudden the value of that ad campaign is GONE.

So what you really need to do is make a film that the reviewers and audiences love. And then you have to make sure the audiences know about it.

Anything else -- licensed properties, known actors, etc., that's all gravy. But if you make a film that audiences love, it'll have more and more of a chance for success.

There's something of a revolution going on in film viewing anyway, where audiences can demand what film they want to see. And with digital distribution coming along, it'll be more and more practical. Get a crowd of your friends together on Facebook, maybe get your church group together and make a plan -- "hey, we're all gonna go watch Brandon Rice's "No Greater Love" on the bigscreen Friday, who's in?" Get two hundred people to buy tickets, and then go to the theater and say "hey, get "No Greater Love" for us on Friday at 8pm and we'll buy 200 tickets. Theater owner has a sold-out screening, so he contacts the digital download library and rents the film for a showing, you all come in, watch it, have a great time, etc...

... that's the way things are gonna go. And there's not a lot of reasons why it can't happen today. But what does this mean? It means it's up to YOU, the filmmaker, to get the word out to people so that they want to watch it!

So choose your marketing tool carefully. Actors? That can do it... ads, that can do it... great reviews, that can help, but you still have to make people aware and convince them to go see it or buy the DVD or whatever. They're not gonna just automatically come looking for you, you have to make them aware of what you've got.

And it had better be good. Really, really good. Or you're dead in the water, because everybody goes on IMDB and looks at the rating, everybody goes on rottentomatoes or netflix or yahoo movies and looks at the end-user ratings. And if it doesn't have great ratings, they aren't gonna come.

Unless it's Transylmania, of course.