Why do you (and most everyone else) pay for it?

[Brian_Rice]

We've been having some on-going discussions about the varying principles of filmmakers and debating the existentialism of filmmaking as well as the real factual costs, but I'd be interested in us having a conversation about the people who go out and see, rent or buy these films.

I was having another conversation about web-based material and how to make it profitable. One of the examples I'd given was that if The Guild had after its first season began releasing every consecutive season as straight-to-DVD movies that they would have been successful. It's still an on-going debate.

I realized, though, that I was speaking from my perspective as a fan of the show. If someone was to say 50 years ago, "Hey, if they brought The Honeymooners to the big screen, people would line out the theatre to go see it," they would have been laughed out of the room because, "Why would someone pay to see something that they get to see for free on TV?"

Well, when the first X-files film came out, I was there opening night.

Heck, the comic book based on The Guild was a sell-out success and has moved into a collected graphic novel edition.

We can go on all day saying that the reason comic book films are so successful is because of the big effects and explosions, but doesn't it really just come down to branding and not, necessarily, the cost of making the film or whether or not I can watch Spiderman animations for free all day long?

Now, most of us here are film geeks, so a lot of us will see films because of the director, writer, DP, editor, producer, etc. But for the average film-goer, why do they go see a film? And to bring things into some sort of relative space, why would the average viewer go see a micro-budget, no name cast indie flick?

To me, at least as it relates to genre films, I think it's all about branding. I also think that a lot of indie filmmakers worry too much about branding themselves and not, necessarily, their product. To continue with the comic book analogy, can you imagine if Marvel had tried branding Stan Lee over Spiderman or The Hulk or the X-men? The company and all of its entities would have failed.

But if it *is* about branding the product, if that is the most important thing, then why do so many filmmakers work so hard into branding themselves or their production company? When I see filmmaker blogs, 99% of the time the blog is not about the product, its title does not reference the product, like everything else, it's all about the filmmaker.

I wonder if it's because of the 90s filmmakers and how the filmmakers themselves were the brand that the studio sold us on (especially in the case of Smith and Rodriguez). Have times in fact changed so that now we need to start behaving more like mini studios and less like actors trying to create a *name* for themselves?

I mean, when's the last time you saw a commercial for Paramount? When's the last time you saw a commercial for Martin Scorsese?

I wonder if some middle ground exists like what the old horror flick guys did in the late 70s and early 80s, "John Carpenter's Halloween".

In the end, though, what is going to make the people, sans the things you can't control like word-of-mouth, what's going to make the people go out and see your indie movie? I think for all the effort we put in discussing things to death on these boards, this is probably the most important obstacle any of us will face.

 

[Ted Ramasola]

I'm an advertising director/producer rather than a feature/narrative director so I can actually understand some or most of the ideas and hypothesis you are writing here.

In my career, in my country, in the region I work, we began pushing Branding almost 17-20 years ago, there was a "shift" from pushing products or people per se, and shifting to Branding, we had to repackage and refocus advertising to focus more on branding.

Most decisions are based on data collated from market research, then in some cases, you'd have focus group discussions with a sampling from a market segment to confirm shifting tastes and perceptions.

I guess theres not a one size fits all approach to this, I'd say we can't generalize, while in some cases some production companies repackage by branding themselves but at the end of the day, decision makers still search out individuals with the experience , skill and character to get the job done rather than specific company names.

 

[Brian_Rice]

See, *that* I do agree with. If you're a person trying to get a job, then branding yourself is always the way to go. And I think that's why things in the indie film market get so convoluded -- because as an independent director, writer, etc. you *are* "trying to land a job" within the larger studio system. So your short films (and even potentially features) aren't brands, they're your reels, your portfolio, your resume.

But with the age of self-distribution bearing down on us and the corporate distribution model becoming less and less important, should "landing a job" really be the primary goal of the indie filmmaker? Certainly obtaining *funding* for projects will always be a concern, but isn't funding on the independent circuit really about (after name talent) proof of brand, popularity of concept and evidence of previous sales?

Those would be my main concerns as an investor. The thing that would not impress me is whether or not a specific filmmaker or filmmaker's production company had a specific "following", because that following doesn't translate to anything else except for his/her following. However, if that same filmmaker had a strong following on a *film* they'd done and the current concept they were trying to fund was similar to the concept of the film that had the strong following, *that* would interest me because as the producer and in charge of marketing, a *concept* is much more marketable than is an individual or corporation.

 

[Pookie]

I thought this thread was about an entirely different topic.......:embarasse

 

[vcassel]

I don't think most people build a philosophy around what they purchase or why; I think most default to ease of accessibility. In this sense I think distribution and format has just as much relevance as branding, maybe more; maybe less.

On the marketing side it's a complex topic. Studios contend with audience apathy and product confusion. This is why prequels, sequels, and remakes are usually a sure thing; half the battle is already won if the project has audience familiarity attached to it. Have you ever read the loglines for in theater movies out of newspaper or internet listings to a date or a friend? I have, and for most films I get blank stares or eye rolls. And I'm talking some pretty good films here. It's hard to sell a movie. I don't begrudge major studios for being formulaic; audiences are just extremely fickle and tend not to subconciously react very openly to new or possibly confusing things. And if you don't have a so-called 'high concept' potentially formulaic film, it's pretty damn difficult to write a short, non-confusing logline for it.

I was there for the first X-Files film on opening day too, back in my late teens. I thought it was a boring movie that didn't exactly shake up the mythos enough to justify the ticket cost. I eventually gave up on the series and I never bothered with the second film. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice....

Or you could just do what Lost did and save fooling me for the series finale when it's too late for me to jump ship.

 

[Brian_Rice]

I thought this thread was about an entirely different topic.......:embarasse

It's all about the hook.

 

[Brian_Rice]

I don't think most people build a philosophy around what they purchase or why; I think most default to ease of accessibility. In this sense I think distribution and format has just as much relevance as branding, maybe more; maybe less.

On the marketing side it's a complex topic. Studios contend with audience apathy and product confusion. This is why prequels, sequels, and remakes are usually a sure thing; half the battle is already won if the project has audience familiarity attached to it. Have you ever read the loglines for in theater movies out of newspaper or internet listings to a date or a friend? I have, and for most films I get blank stares or eye rolls. And I'm talking some pretty good films here. It's hard to sell a movie. I don't begrudge major studios for being formulaic; audiences are just extremely fickle and tend not to subconciously react very openly to new or possibly confusing things. And if you don't have a so-called 'high concept' potentially formulaic film, it's pretty damn difficult to write a short, non-confusing logline for it.

I was there for the first X-Files film on opening day too, back in my late teens. I thought it was a boring movie that didn't exactly shake up the mythos enough to justify the ticket cost. I eventually gave up on the series and I never bothered with the second film. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice....

Or you could just do what Lost did and save fooling me for the series finale when it's too late for me to jump ship.

But the point is that you actually went to see the film. It not living up to your expectations is something else entirely, and while I don't completely agree with you that the film was a fail, I completely agree that any time you pay to see any film you should be getting your money's worth.

I think ease of accessability is a good point, but it's nearly moot in the internet age. Any indie person anywhere can get their film on Netflix Watch it Now or have it for pay-per-download or have hard copies for sale on Createspace. Accessability has been, some would say, *over* dealt with.

Also, kind of what you spoke to regarding "high concept", any conversations regarding the indie marketing of non-genre indie films is, IMO, an impossible nut to crack. I could not imagine ever wanting to do something indie that wasn't a genre flick from a creative or financial stand point. The closest thing in the sector that's marketable would be the faith-based films, but even those might be edging on genre flicks.

However, I think that if someone makes Saw and then they make Hostel and then they make Cabin Fever, although they're not sequels, being of the same genre (or even sub-genre) is enough to maintain a linear marketing strategy.

And speaking to the web-based marketing tool of "giving it away for free" and then "charging for it", I think that if someone made a Cabin Fever Web Series and then released Cabin Fever The Movie straight to DVD, a good portion of that audience would carry over and download the film.

But take that same formula and apply it to even a web mega star like Felicia Day, while a The Guild The Movie might fly off the shelves, the "New Comedy (or worse, Drama) from Felicia Day" probably wouldn't bring a huge portion of The Guild's audience with it. Of course Felicia Day isn't stupid so her latest project is to write and star in a series based on an established video game property.

All this is to say is that as indie films go forward and everyone and their mother can pick up a camcorder, shoot something and then have it available on Netflix (see: Methodic), and start a blog about themselves and their production company, *content* and the *marketing of that content* seems to be what the public is willing to accept and fall in line behind.

So instead of it being "You're only as good as your last picture" I feel like it should be "You're only as good as your last picture -- and you don't matter anymore"

 

[vcassel]

I think ease of accessability is a good point, but it's nearly moot in the internet age. Any indie person anywhere can get their film on Netflix Watch it Now or have it for pay-per-download or have hard copies for sale on Createspace. Accessability has been, some would say, *over* dealt with.

Good point, and that reminds me - http://bestsellerauthors.com/warren/young-authors-best-seller-books-make-millions-without-publisher/

Amanda Hocking sells a lot of books.

In the past year, her 9 books on Amazon have sold 900,000 copies on Amazon.

All direct to Amazon.

Her forte is the 99 cent novels. Yes, just 99 cents. Amazon pays up to 70% to the author.

Do the math, Amada is doing better then most authors and parlayed this into a movie deal, foreign right, etc.

When you find out what the market wants, work the system and provide great content, there a many ways for an author to prosper… in any economy.

Is Amanda’s model right for you? Comment here with your ideas on how this will sell more of your book.

 

[Batutta]

I came up with a theory once that the general public is driven to the theater by one of two things, movie stars or special effects. This might be too crass and simplistic, but as the old saying goes, nobody ever went broke being crass and simplistic. Yes, a good story idea hooks an audience too, but it's generally in combination with one of the fist two. If you really want to see firsthand why people go to the movies, you should do some time as a ticket taker. I did when I was a teenager, and I was struck by how many people just walked up without knowing what they were going to see. They generally asked one of three questions, or all of them -- What's it about, who's in it, and is it any good? I think the subtext of each question can be broken down like this--

What's it about (will this hold my interest and reaffirm my values)?

Who's in it (is there anybody in it I want to have sex with)?

Is it any good? (I don't want to waste my money on a piece of junk)


I imagine the subtext for an indie film viewer would be sort of the opposite--

What's it about (will this hold my interest and challenge mainstream values)?

Who's in it (are there any marginally known but well respected actors in it)?

Is it any good (if I like this movie will I be cool)?

 

[Brian_Rice]

Fantastic post VC. Really cool. And what's funny is that it speaks directly to what I mentioned earlier regarding branding. It looks like 7 out of her 9 books are titles that she's turned into brands.

Bat -- I think what you say makes sense, but I still think *product* branding is the #1 marketing source tool.

Solaris (George Clooney, FX): 30 million. Red Planet (Val Kilmer, Carrie-Anne Moss when they still mattered) 33 million. Phantoms (Ben Affleck when he still mattered): 6 million.

AVP: Requiem: 128 million

Silent Hill: 97 million

Heck, AVP made more than The Fifth Element domestically, and that had Bruce Willis.

In the studio system the highest grossing films over the last two decades and certainly the most consistently big box office titles will invariably be brands. I think the anomalies are the Avatars and Titanics being out front, which would be your position of Effects + Name. Even something like Toy Story 3 is now nothing more than a brand name.

Now I just picked the above flicks out of a hat, but if we agree that these are all equally "bad" in their own right (though I've enjoyed all of them for various reasons) and all received similar marketing and screen time, the brand names absolutey crush their name + effects competition. I think brands can and have lost out to Effects + Name + Critical praise, or even Effects + Name + Hyper marketing (like Minority report which I personally thought was toilet paper for all the talent and dollars invested in it), but as an indie, if we were to mimic the big studios, branded products are, it seems to me, the most tride and true route to follow.

Now I could be wrong about this last part, but *I* believe that more people will see a movie for it being a Halo movie than will people go see a Steven Spielberg movie for it being a Steven Spielberg movie. That's bold statement, I know. But all things being equal -- effects, talent, budget, popular opinion and, above all, marketing, I think the brand name wins out. And if that's true, then if we shrink all that down to the indie universe, then I think it speaks to my point about you the filmmaker or you the production company being of little importance to your film's audience.

I think if more indies started doing the work of creating brands for themselves, the road to distribution or successful self-distribution might become less difficult. But if people stay in the 90s mindset of focusing their attention, time and marketing dollars on the film's filmmaker instead of the filmmaker's film, I think that's only a battle only a large studio with large studio capital can win. IMO all of the filmmaker's attention, time and marketing dollars should be spent branding their products, not themselves.

 

[Batutta]

F

Bat -- I think what you say makes sense, but I still think *product* branding is the #1 marketing source tool.

I just don't think branding is that applicable to movies. You can't wear a movie. A brand is like a seal of quality for the consumer, a status symbol that says to the world, I'm cool/rich/socially conscious, because I have this product. A movie is its own individual thing at the end of the day and can't have a brand slapped onto it. A director can have a brand to an extent, but that only gets you a certain core audience. It can help a filmmaker maintain a career as its easier for him to get his work made, but it doesn't bring in the masses. It's still the individual movie that has to possess the goods. You can have products which have a built in audience -- that's why comic book movies are so popular with the studios, but that's not quite the same things as a brand.

 

[Brian_Rice]

I just don't think branding is that applicable to movies. You can't wear a movie. A brand is like a seal of quality for the consumer, a status symbol that says to the world, I'm cool/rich/socially conscious, because I have this product. A movie is its own individual thing at the end of the day and can't have a brand slapped onto it. A director can have a brand to an extent, but that only gets you a certain core audience. It can help a filmmaker maintain a career as its easier for him to get his work made, but it doesn't bring in the masses. It's still the individual movie that has to possess the goods. You can have products which have a built in audience -- that's why comic book movies are so popular with the studios, but that's not quite the same things as a brand.

Well, for the sake of argument I'm defining "brand" in this instance as "something with a built-in audience".

And what's funny about comic book films is that comic books themselves actually don't sell too terribly well. Something like X-men brings in on about 150K a month (or 50K in readers), which is pretty paltry when you think about it. Apply those same 50K to ticket sales and you're barely hitting 1 million bucks in ticket sales. But the *brand* that's been established is what, I think, creates 50% of a comic book movie's audience.

So you don't read X-men, but you've heard of X-men. You think maybe you might have watched a cartoon episode of it once or twice. You remember the cartoon being pretty lame, which is why you stopped watching it. Doesn't matter what the X-men film is about, doesn't matter if the movie itself is terribly good or if the main actor is a nobody and the director is a nobody to 95% of people, you're going to see X-men. You see it. Thought it was pretty mediocre but not a complete waste of time. Then, two years later, you're there opening night to see X-men 2. Again, not great, but at least it was a scant bit better than the last one. And ho -- here comes X-men 3. Why did you end up seeing these movies in the first place? Who cares? Your first in line for X-men 3 again. Wolverine: Origins? Hey -- why not? Deadpool? Who's that?

To me another good example of this is the first Harry Potter movie. Say what you want about Harry Potter, defend it as you need, but that first movie is not a good film. It just isn't. It's no better than the Rock's rendition of Escape to Witch Mountain or Cage's The Sorceror's Apprentice. The difference is that Harry Potter had more brand recognition.

I think building brands works. The film, the filmmaker, the studio, the name talent -- all, on some level, are inferior to the brand name of the film.

God...I mean...Spiderman. Come on. Star Wars: Episode One? People actually saw that a second and third time in theatres even after witnessing how bad it was. People actually said out loud that it was horrible and that they were going back to see it anyway. Bad movie, bad acting, bad script, bad everything -- GREAT brand.

Wait, wait, wait...and...oh god...Masters of the Universe?

It was the 3rd highest grossing film the week it came out.

Transformers 2?

People *saw* Transformers and then came back a second time. Opening night. Standing in line. For Transformers 2.

Epic.

I actually *own* all four Resident Evil movies and even the CGI film Degeneration even though I don't think *collectively* they make one good film. But...I like the brand. So I buy. I literally buy the films because of the name on the side of the box.

 

[Batutta]

Well, for the sake of argument I'm defining "brand" in this instance as "something with a built-in audience".

And what's funny about comic book films is that comic books themselves actually don't sell too terribly well.

Going back to my original observations on what drives people to the theater, "known properties" is maybe a better phrase than "built in audience". A "known property" answers the question "What's it about?" before they've seen even a frame of film. They know the character, and some of the story, just by pop culture osmosis, and know wether or not they want to see it. And comic book properties are doubly popular because they are a canvas for doing lots of whiz bang special effects.

At the end of the day though, movie stars, special effects, known properties...they only get the audience in the theater. What keeps them in their seats and coming back for more is a good story well told.

 

[Batutta]

I actually *own* all four Resident Evil movies and even the CGI film Degeneration even though I don't think *collectively* they make one good film. But...I like the brand. So I buy. I literally buy the films because of the name on the side of the box.

This I do not understand. I only buy things I consider good, and honestly, I could tell those movies were bad just by the trailers and who was making them.

 

[Brian_Rice]

Exactly. That's why I think the easiest route for indie filmmakers is to simply follow the studio model for "known property" films.

1) Build a property

2) Turn your property into exciting designs, logos and various merch

3) Repurpose as needed

Now I don't think that a property has to begin as a film. It could be a comic book, novel, web series, podcast, plastic cigarette case, etc. The key, though, is to brand, brand, brand the property the same way Marvel does for Spiderman. Heck, most of the cartoons from the 80s weren't cartoons, they were commercials for the toys. In many instances, though, the toys are a result of the cartoon. It can work either way, but the most important thing is that branding. I don't care if it's stickers on the side of buildings so long as the property is being branded for people to see.

Heck, I could see someone with a new horror flick property handing out those rubber wrist bands with the name of his/her film on it. Doesn't matter what the film property is, so long as it's being branded.

 

[Batutta]

Now I don't think that a property has to begin as a film. It could be a comic book, novel, web series, podcast, plastic cigarette case, etc. The key, though, is to brand, brand, brand the property the same way Marvel does for Spiderman.

I don't agree past web series. It has to be something that gives them an indication of what the narrative content is about -- what's the story, who are the characters, etc. It can't just be a thing they recognize. This is where I think name recognition has its limits when it comes to movies. I think this is why movies based on video games aren't as popular with the general public and don't guarantee success. Joe Blow off the street doesn't know what the story of Halo is, or who the characters are. They know who Spider-Man is. They probably know he got bitten by a radioactive spider and became a superhero. Based on that they might go, yeah, I'll go see that and take my kid.

 

[Brian_Rice]

But comparing a comic book movie to a video game movie is splitting hairs. What we should be doing is comparing video games movies to non-brand movies. Resident Evil vs. Cabin Fever, etc.

Halo, honestly, had less of a story than Thundercats. It's basically just an invention to get a few different species of aliens together all fighting one another. Since then they've tried to flesh out the universe, but all attempts are pretty silly IMO.

Oh, and I just remembered that not only do I own all of the Resident Evil movies, I also own all of the game novelizations. The novels certainly aren't the best science fiction prose I've ever read, but the brand is what had me purchase those books over a thousand other zombie novels. Same reason I'll go see a Resident Evil movie before I'll go see joe blow's zombie movie. In both instances I know the story and narrative content (basically), and I even know that joe blow's zombie movie might be better than the next Resident Evil flick. But again, the branding keeps my most base human self engaged. There's some odd part of people's brains that think if they see something in a lot of different places and in a lot of different formats somehow the thing is *important*.

It's like seeing Pepsi everywhere or Stop Signs or McDonalds. People see Star Trek everywhere and by virtue of it existing in multiple formats, it somehow matters and people who like Star Trek will engage in pretty much anything with Star Trek in the title.

I mean, in all honesty Resident Evil hasn't been a good brand since the very first game. It's been going downhill ever since. Some would say the same goes for multiple other franchises -- Halloween leaps to mind. And although I knew any subsequent Halloween movie would suck, I've seen every single one of them and actually even own a couple. But to your point -- WHY is that?

The first Resident Evil game was great. The first Halloween was great. The first time I had Chipotle it was great. So that's the *impression* that was used to create the brand.

Ironically branding in entertainment has even more value than branding of merchandise or food, because while if they changed Chipotle around completely and I now hated their food, I would stop going; whereas them completely crapping on The Batman franchise with Batman and Robin did nothing to hurt box office numbers of the reinvigorated Batman: Begins. So no matter how repulsively bad Resident Evil: Afterlife was, or how far AVP: Requiem was from the original Alien or Predator films, the fans will still be forgiving and actually pay money to see these films because of the original branding.

I don't want to get too far from the point, though. My primary point is simply that indie filmmakes need to be building and promoting brands, not themselves. Obviously, though the brand (or, film) they've built will *hopefully* be a decent product.

But regardless, there's a part of me that believes that if some 18 year old kid was given the rights to make a Batman film with his friends on a handycam and actually sell it to the public, there is a substantial number of people who would download, rent or purchase that video, simply because of the brand that's attached -- a brand that has proven to be extremely vulnerable to bad deicisions and wasn't even decent source material between the 1950s all the way up to the release of The Dark-Knight Returns.

 

[Batutta]

But regardless, there's a part of me that believes that if some 18 year old kid was given the rights to make a Batman film with his friends on a handycam and actually sell it to the public, there is a substantial number of people who would download, rent or purchase that video, simply because of the brand that's attached -- a brand that has proven to be extremely vulnerable to bad deicisions and wasn't even decent source material between the 1950s all the way up to the release of The Dark-Knight Returns.

But the Batman brand exists because of the narrative content of the original comics. The character and story of Batman is what's kept its appeal going. It's not popular just because people recognize it.

 

[Brian_Rice]

We'll never be able to say incontrovertably why people went to see the first Tim Burton Batman movie. It could have been a million different reasons, but from what I remember most people's only *impression* of Batman (the 60s show) was vastly different than the looks, asthetics and overall "narrative content and character and story" of the Tim Burton version.

That film had so much going for it, though, it'd be hard to really pinpoint any one thing.

Also, I think at times we're arguing the same point. We're both saying that the root brand, be it Pepsi, Spiderman or Nikes needs to be something of value, something people like, yes? My point is that when it comes to film, once you've created the brand (e.g. you've created something people like), even if you completely bend your brand over and strip it of everything it ever was or could have been (see: AVP: Requiem), a good portion of people will still see the film *even if they never saw the original film that the current branding is based on*.

And I think that's the crux of all of it. I garauntee that there were a large number of people who went to see Resident Evil who had never played the game. Just as many probably went to see AVP without ever seeing Alien or Predator. And certainly a ton of people went to see Silent Hill without ever having played the game. So even though all of those things were inferior to the actual thing that gave them their branding, people still lined up for it because of the name.

I mean, there are a million Silent Hill type films out there. And for all intents and purposes the actors weren't well known and the effects weren't much better than the average Sci Fi channel original movie. People had a hundred different options, but in the end they went to go see or rented Silent Hill. Only because it's a brand name.

 

[Batutta]

I guess what I'm saying is that yes, it would be smart for an indie filmmaker to cultivate a brand, but that brand must be built around a singular narrative product. People don't build loyalty to film studios, so why would they follow an indie label. They follow characters and stories. So to create an indie film brand you must first create something iconic that everybody loves, which isn't so easy.