Zero budget film released on iTunes and turns a significant profit.

I think the discussion is more about name directors achieving their own distribution versus unknown filmmakers achieving their own distribution (with "zero" budget films).

I find it hilarious that film journalists are making out like it's a big deal that well established directors with long histories of success are able to self distribute their no budget films and make money doing it.

Whoopdee friggin' doo!
 
Just watched the trailer, and I had to laugh

Am I the only one that got the feeling that this "film" seems like it was merely a way to get a hot actress to go on vacation, make out, and hump the lead actor on a motorcycle, in bath rooms, on the beach etc etc, for the two week "shoot"?
 
Saharanturtle said:
Just watched the trailer, and I had to laugh

Am I the only one that got the feeling that this "film" seems like it was merely a way to get a hot actress to go on vacation, make out, and hump the lead actor on a motorcycle, in bath rooms, on the beach etc etc, for the two week "shoot"?
Click to expand...

+1
 
Saharanturtle said:
Am I the only one that got the feeling that this "film" seems like it was merely a way to get a hot actress to go on vacation, make out, and hump the lead actor on a motorcycle, in bath rooms, on the beach etc etc, for the two week "shoot"?
Click to expand...
And make some money from it, apparently.
 
Barry_Green said:
No real way to know, of course, but the Japanese Horror trend gives us a little bit of a way to compare. If you saw the original "Ringu" and then the Hollywood A-list version "The Ring", they were very very very very similar films. I mean, not 100% shot-for-shot remake, and obviously with better effects in the Hollywood version, but -- you'll rarely see a more identical film to compare with. The A-list Hollywood version grossed $129 million. The same film with a no-name cast and no-name director, Ringu, grossed $1.7 Singapore dollars.
Click to expand...



Yeah, there are foreign examples for sure, but I always wonder, when I see mumblecore films made by and cast with A-listers, how they'd have done if made by unknowns with unknowns in the cast.
 
arroway said:
An audience he gained mostly through the Miramax promotion machine. The same one he now ridicules in public.

Reminds me of NIN.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But him being promoted and gaining that following does allow him to be independent and successful now.

Despite being a Miramax darling, he did have a proactive hand in cultivating his cult audience though. So he deserves credit for staying engaged with his fanbase.

Similar 90s indie wunderkind filmmakers did not build such a rabid fanbase and couldn't pull off the Red State coup.

-M
 
Chris Santucci said:
I think the discussion is more about name directors achieving their own distribution versus unknown filmmakers achieving their own distribution (with "zero" budget films).

I find it hilarious that film journalists are making out like it's a big deal that well established directors with long histories of success are able to self distribute their no budget films and make money doing it.

Whoopdee friggin' doo!
Click to expand...

Yes! it is quite comical in my opinion.

-M
 
Chris Santucci said:
Yeah, there are foreign examples for sure, but I always wonder, when I see mumblecore films made by and cast with A-listers, how they'd have done if made by unknowns with unknowns in the cast.
Click to expand...

You know the answer...hundreds, maybe thousands of films are like this each year.

To be fair, there is a fairly successful Mumblecore cadre who've found some audience and distribution on the festival circuit...Primarily the SXSW Film Festival and championed by Matt Dentler for the most part in the beginning. And filmmakers like the Duplass Brothers and actress Greta Gerwig have gone on to mainstream success from it. And in the beginning those mumblecore movies had no names associated. Now, through the buzz of the mumblecore "movement" the filmmakers and actors have some audience from their previous efforts. So, filmmakers like Joe Swanberg, Andrew Bujalski, and Aaron Katz have acquired minor followings and can continue to build their audiences and continue the cycle.

Some are dipping their toes into bigger projects as well.

However, all that said, it's only a select few in this crowd that got sanctioned and many of the movies are no better and sometimes far worse (in my opinion) than similar films made by people I know who haven't gotten any recognition for it.

Shoot, I used to write (and maybe even make) movies that could have been considered mumblecore but I got away from it and concentrate now more on GENRE filmmaking and writing because I know the chance of me getting "in the club" of mumblecore success stories is slim to none. And now it's mainly because the "movement" has lost heat in the press at least.

Maybe I can do one of those 90s style indies that I liked so much one day, but in the mean time I need to make movies that have the best chance of being distributed in order to build on those successes.

-Martin
 
It's not a bad model if you can pull it off. There isn't much more to it than goes into many of the short films that premier here on DVXUser. Key difference is that the established producers and directors are experts at packaging to take advantage of the talent they can bring to the table. This is less about scamming the audience than it is about doing what many of us try to do a little bit better (in most cases) and brilliant relationship marketing.

Go write and make something with whatever you can bring together.
 
Erik Olson said:
This is less about scamming the audience than it is about doing what many of us try to do a little bit better (in most cases) and brilliant relationship marketing.
Click to expand...

I kind of disagree with this. If you go to France, whip out a camera, and just shoot two people frolicking around the location, with little heed to character development/story, and then get people to rent it in droves on iTunes simple because the actress from Castle is in it, then it does seem to be a bit of a scam. Was this movie shot because the Polish Brothers had a story they were just dying to tell? Or did it allow them to vacation in Spain, fool around with an attractive woman, and then use her fan base to make a bit of money off of it? Is it any different than designing a movie poster with a well-known actor being front and center when he's on screen for less than a minute?

I haven't seen the film, so I could be dead wrong, but the trailer turns be off completely given how pretentious any "artsy" (in the bad way...think the message of "Exit Through the Gift Shop") it is.
 
Don't watch it? Look, we can be jealous or jilted or scorned when others succeed or we can lift lessons from their gamble and apply them when it makes sense. I'm always happy to read about our members when they make good things happen. The key component for making something happen is getting up and starting something. I've had a lot of my projects die on the vine because I, or the people I've surrounded myself with, weren't motivated to just get it done.
 
Erik Olson said:
Look, we can be jealous or jilted or scorned when others succeed or we can lift lessons from their gamble and apply them when it makes sense.
Click to expand...

What lesson?

1) Find exotic location
2) Find actress with fanbase that will let you fool around with her for the sake of "art"
3) ???
4) Profit!

I have no problems when others succeed, but there is no lesson here that can be easily applied. It's a very specific "perfect storm" that will quickly peter out once audiences realize they've been had.

Reminds me of this:

 
Last edited:
Erik Olson said:
The key component for making something happen is getting up and starting something. I've had a lot of my projects die on the vine because I, or the people I've surrounded myself with, weren't motivated to just get it done.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I've often had friends point out a particular project to me, whether it be a feature, commercial, music video or whatever, and say 'we could have made that' (as though the actual execution is the easiest part of the equation). My response is always the same - the biggest difference between them and us is that they did it, and we didn't.

Reminds me of the scene in the Social Network - "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."
 
Gary Huff said:
I wouldn't exactly call their careers "mainstream" at this stage (nor would I have included an actress in the list).
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know what's not MAINSTREAM about Jonah Hill, John C. Rielly and Marissa Tomei in your $7 million movie and Greta Gerwig is a filmmaker in her own right with Nights and Weekends to her (non-acting) credit among others. So, I don't think I'm off base.

-M
 
Martay said:
Well, I don't know what's not MAINSTREAM about Jonah Hill, John C. Rielly and Marissa Tomei in your $7 million movie and Greta Gerwig is a filmmaker in her own right with Nights and Weekends to her (non-acting) credit among others. So, I don't think I'm off base.

-M
Click to expand...

And Jason Segel, Ed Helms and Susan Sarandon in their next studio film.
 
Gary Huff said:
Would you consider Uwe Boll to be a director with mainstream success?
Click to expand...

I would, sure - why not?
Though technically - have any of his films been studio movies? Or were they all financed independently?
I see the Duplass's move to studios as a sign of their 'mainstream' success, personally.

To go from making a feature on a few grand of your own money to having a studio seek you out and fund you for a few million with known talent, I think that's definitely something.
Whether we call it 'mainstream success' or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top