All Aboard the Piracy Bandwagon

Times are tough, but it seems that there is a growing trend amongst indie filmmakers to blame much of their ill times on internet piracy.  While the studios have long asserted that the internet and file sharing is to blame for millions in lost revenue we are no seeing a trend amongst indie filmmakers who place blame on internet pirates for their film's lack of success.

The latest case to crop up comes from the LA Times profile piece on filmmaker Greg Carter.

Greg Carter spent the last three years scraping together $250,000 to write, direct and produce "A Gangland Love Story," a gritty, urban retelling of "Romeo and Juliet."

Since its DVD release in July, audiences have embraced it: More than 60,000 viewers have watched the movie on the Internet, giving the independent filmmaker a coveted public following.

Unfortunately, winning an audience has come at a steep price. The viewers of Carter's film watched if from pirate movie sites and never paid for it. Carter figures the unauthorized viewing has cost him as much as $100,000 in lost revenue, dashing hope that he'll ever see a profit.

Now on the surface this seems pretty straight forward: Piracy = Bad.  However if the film community is to make sense of the next decade of entertainment media and engaging the audience we MUST dig deeper than that and get to the roots. We can't assume anything.

In reading this story there are some pretty bold assumptions set forth that I would like to question...

[Full disclosure. I have met and discussed business with Greg Carter many years ago when I was with York Entertainment.  I admire his business savvy and entrepreneurism, and have no axe to grind here. I have also done work for Maverick Entertainment as a freelancer]

1. I would like to know how he arrives at the $100,000 estimate he says he's lost to piracy.

2. I would like to know where the movie has been sold.  Has the # of downloads of the movie ever been used as a marketing sell point?

3. Beyond this article, Greg has never had an interview with the LA Times for one of his movies.  What is the value of this article toward people looking for the movie now that they've read about it?

4. What has he done to reach out to all of the people who watched his movie to see if they would be willing to pay money for a DVD of it?  Has he attempted to sell the soundtrack to the movie as an ancillary product?

5. What is the line item budget of the picture?  I ask this because budget is often used as a press ploy in these articles.  I want to look at the actual ROI for this film.

6. Has he done any events to promote the film and tie it to the urban audience?

Piracy IS going to happen, but we need to analyze these stories very closely to determine the truth of whether or not piracy was a factor in the film's profit or loss.  This is tricky business and there's too many unclear assertions in this article without any actual facts being presented.

Conversation Starters for Those Indie Film Parties

If you've spent any time in the film or media business then you're on several lists for parties celebrating someone's indie film  or web series success (the film or web series actually got made instead of being talked to death). If you're new to the game, and a devout pulp mediamaker then you'll want to have a few conversation starters for when you make the rounds to shake hands.

I like to call my conversation starters, 'grenades.'

You throw one of these bon mots into a crowd of film glitterati  (indie or studio) and you are guaranteed to elicit some sort of conversation / argument / debate that is sure to leave your victims knowing who you are and what you stand for...

• The success of your film and whether or not you get fully paid is directly proportional to the size of the budget. The bigger the budget the more likely you aren't going to get paid what you are due from your distributor. 
• Filmmakers should give up trying to screen their films theatrically, but instead use the internet to actually have a financial success instead of a noble financial failure.  After all, there are more computer screens in the world than theater screens. 

• Critical reviews and press have very little bearing on whether or not a film is picked up by a distributor. There are far more critical darlings out there who don't have distribution than there are films which were picked up because of a review. 

• Most indie filmmakers are more concerned about their reviews (thus stroking their ego)  and getting laid than they are building a business that allows them to entertain people for a living. 

• Government funding for films and filmmakers should be dependent upon the financial success of the filmmakers and their films.  In this regard the government should also loan the funding, and not grant the funding. 

• You can't make a cohesive movie without understanding who makes up the audience for the movie. 

• Using Trajan as your movie's poster font means you are a pretentious wanker who's more concerned about looking important than communicating to your audience what your movie's about. 

• I hate (insert name of indie film actor or actress)... or  I hate (insert film type here i.e. "Mumblecore")

• I have no problem with product placement in my movie if it helps it get made and seen. 

So there you have some of the grenades I use to light the conversation fuse (or cull the herd - depends on the situation).  Can you think of some others?  Add them to the comments. 

Remember, take no prisoners...

Your Indie Film Business Plan

"What's the secret of making money in indie film, Bill?"

"If everything's for free, or so cheap - how can I compete? How can I make money too?"

It's really simple.  [It is, and don't try and deny it.]  You can obfuscate it all you want with terminology and reports and graphs...but the underlying business plan is simple, clear and direct....

And here it is in two parts:

1. "The only film that an independent can make and survive with is a film that the major producers cannot or will not make." -- Herschell Gordon Lewis

2. "You want to get your indie movie into the hands of its audience, then you have to deliver it to where they are and not expect them to come to you" -- Bill Cunningham

Anything above and beyond this is frosting. This is the poundcake.

This is your business plan. 

The Following is a Symptom of What's Wrong with Indie Film...

From The Guardian via Denis:  

The Uma Thurman film so bad it made £88 on opening weekend

Motherhood's disastrous performance at the box office provokes bitter confrontation between producer and UK distributor.

Over its opening weekend, no more than a dozen people went to see Motherhood, a semi-autobiographical account of stressed-out Manhattan parenting written and directed by Katherine Dieckmann. The film made just £88 on the weekend of Friday 5 March. On its debut Sunday, box office takings were £9, meaning one person bought a ticket.

The disaster has now degenerated into a bitter confrontation between Metrodrome, responsible for marketing the film in the UK, and producer Jana Edelbaum, who blames the company for Motherhood's atrocious performance.

Edelbaum is adamant that Metrodome must be to blame, and insisted that she would demand a full explanation. "Think how much crap succeeds at the cinema," she said. "Motherhood is not bad. It's a very decent movie. I've seen movies that are not half as good."

Now, I am skipping over some details here, that are covered more fully in the Guardian article. Please read it thoroughly because it will season the meat of the matter that I am about to cut into.

People ask me all the time to take a look at their film and tell them what's wrong with it.  Actually, they don't say that so much as they want me to lavish praise on all their hard work,  pat them on the back and send them on their way armed with the secret handshake that will get them into the distributor's wallet so they can brag about how their movie got picked up by [insert name of distributor here]  at their local coffee shop.

It sounds stupid to you too, right?

In dealing with the specifics of the article I have to lay blame at the feet of two parties in this disaster:

1. The Producer.
2. The Distributor and its marketing team.

I 'blame' them both because I really don't see the need for this movie to exist in the first place. A movie that the reporter describes as a " a semi-autobiographical account of stressed-out Manhattan parenting" sounds boring, pretentious and exclusive.  If I live in the UK (or even in the US)  what possible reason would I have to think that I can relate to the problems of motherhood in Manhattan?  Let me tell you something - the only people who care about Motherhood in Manhattan are mothers in Manhattan, and that's an extremely small audience.

Let's go beyond that: If I were a Manhattan mother and wanted to go to the movies, don't you think I would want to see something beyond what I deal with in my everyday life?  If I'm going to spend $20 for a movie ticket you better thrill me, make me laugh or seriously make me cry.  And if  I cant get Manhattan mothers to go see the movie, how can I expect people in the UK to pony up hard-earned pounds to go see a movie like that?

Hmmmm...

But wait, Bill! What about Uma Thurman? Certainly she gives good box-office doesn't she?

Yes, in movies where she is kicking ass, getting bloody or doing something unusual. Namely, PULP FICTION - KILL BILL VOLS. 1,2 - and  GATTACA.  Movies that guys want to see as much as their girlfriends want to... seriously.

(Let's not get into the fact that anecdotally I have been in 3-4 conversations about Uma Thurman movies, and the first words out of most women's mouths on the subject are, "I don't think she's all that hot.")

So let's boil it down to a poor choice in subject matter for a movie and poor casting.  This isn't to reflect on Ms. Thurman whose movies I've mentioned above I quite enjoy, think she's extremely good in,  and count as classics.

Then we have the abysmal choice of words from the producer, "Think how much crap succeeds at the cinema," she said. "Motherhood is not bad. It's a very decent movie. I've seen movies that are not half as good."

Not exactly a bell-ringing endorsement of the product she produced is it?  Sort of a " Well at least it's not government cheese"  comment.  Fuck me sideways, but if I don't believe in something then I don't waste my time trying to make it.  If I like something I hang in there to the end. I don't make excuses.


(And by saying "I"  I am actually saying "You as producer" )


Metrodome's faults lie in a poor marketing and distribution strategy that thought exclusivity was a good thing.  In this instance they excluded everyone by communicating a poor selling point to the movie, and went further by not knowing where Uma Thurman's fans reside in the marketplace.  I don't even have to see the movie to understand that - the reporter has communicated the complete lack of any clue as to how to sell this movie to the general public.  I truly don't even know what genre the movie is...it isn't stated in the article.

And therein lies the problem.  Neither the producer, the creatives nor the distributor realized they actually had to get out there and sell the movie.  They had a "build it and they will come" strategy that never works.  They let ego rule the roost instead of figuring out what they needed to do - a better trailer targeted at her fans.  A complete re-edit of the movie, a gag order on the producer from speaking to the press.

Because like it or not,  you're going to have to sell your movie to someone:  To the distributor who will pick it up and continue your sales pitch that convinced him to acquire it. To the press who will communicate that pitch to the mainstream. To the diehard fans as to why they absolutely, positively must see this movie (and buy the book).

But that sort of commerce-forward thinking is poison to these artist types who just want to make their movies... excuse me, "films."

And $5 million +  later, everyone is left holding the bag and looking for someone to blame:

But Edelbaum defended the film: "Our effort was noble. It's a love letter about how difficult it is to be a mum and an individual, and have an identity outside of that. I think we have proved that mothers are too busy to have fun. That they are overstretched and overburdened by the difficulties of their job."

Others, however, disagreed. "It's a yummy-mummy newspaper column splurged onto celluloid, like baby sick on your best cashmere sweater," said Ellen E Jones on film review website, Total Films. "This whiny drivel makes me ashamed to be a woman," said Wendy Ide on the website Rotten Tomatoes – which gave the film a rock-bottom 20% Tomatometer success rating.

Indie film? Get over yourself.  We're just not that into you...

Hard At Work (How the Indie Film Biz Must Change)

Courtesy of Screen Daily:

Kevin Loader, the producer of IN THE LOOP has a guest editorial in today's email version of SCREEN INTERNATIONAL.

"Despite what’s happened to the music industry over the past 15 years, the leaders of the global entertainment business seem unwilling to create a new model for distribution; like their predecessors in the 1950s, they are relying on 3D and Imax to save their short-term balance sheets.

Most of us at the film-making coal-face know this isn’t going to work for long. Founding an entire global distribution system on the profitability of a couple of dozen tentpole movies per year is insanity. It’s also bad for the health of cinema. The canary in the independent film cage has all but stopped singing already."

Of course, this is what we discuss all the time here at Pulp 2.0 - the changing face of media and what it means to those of us toiling away watching that little canary fall over in its cage.

I am excited by what Loader has to say about the Indie film business and how ITL's deal with IFC includes not only a theatrical release (isn't that the kind that usually takes place in a back alley somewhere?) but Video-on-Demand. That speaks to someone listening to the public and looking at their viewing habits and acting accordingly. This is the future. Going to the customer and providing entertainment (books, movies, TeeVee, games, comics). Yes, there will always be communal event programming/experiences - but creators need a gut check when it comes to the possibilities for their media.

Or as Loader puts it...

Here are some pointers for screenwriters: don’t tailor your story for the US market - maybe the days of the transatlantic mash-up are thankfully over; don’t write big period pieces unless you have stars or an A-list director already attached; write stories than engage your audience and can be succinctly marketed; know who your audience might be before you start, and assume it’s bigger than you and your friends; and above all, ask whether you would want to leave the house on a Friday night to see your film - or if not, whether you’ll be happy to stay in and pay £7 -or $12 - to watch it in your home cinema the week it opens, when the distribution system permits!

Indie Film - It All Growed Up

Drew Bellware sent me this via Google Reader about the pitfalls and triumphs of an indie film called FULL GROWN MEN. The post is from one of the producers, David Munro who is guest blogging on Prep Shoot Post and it is a perfect case study for today's indie film producer.

Read it now.

Of special interest is this:

Days turned into weeks, that turned into months. More top-tier festival play, more great reviews (and yes, some not-so-good ones – personal visions are always an acquired taste), more ‘We love it, buts” from acquisitions people. What was going on? Why hadn’t Harvey and Bob backed up the Brinks truck yet?

In crystal-clear hindsight, two reasons: first, we had not made a 100% audience-friendly film. And second, films that were not 100% audience-friendly were no longer selling. The irony, of course, is that indies were never meant to be mainstream. But the runaway success of Indiewood, and the resulting co-optation of indie distributors by studio specialty arms, had created unrealistic hopes, and imposed blockbuster logic on films that were never intended, or capable, of performing like “Pirates Of The Caribbean 3.”

The whole blog post is filled with good, solid in-your-face advice that only comes from someone who's lived this experience. I think Mr. Munro has experienced something similar to what I did several years ago... growing pains.

Okay - It IS New Media Tuesday...

From John August's blog:

Quoting Patrick Goldstein from the LA Times, Stern notes:

“The real problem with the indie business isn’t quality, but discipline. We have a generation of filmmakers who feel entitled to make personal films… and a generation of executives who’ve been willing to essentially use specialty films as a loss-leader to launch their division or win awards. If people in the indie world want to start making money again, they have to start treating their investment like a truly precious natural resource, not like Monopoly money. Discipline is not antithetical to art.”

And later:

Every filmmaker would like her movie to break out of its niche and gain wider exposure and acceptance. But Stern’s point is apt: figure out your base, and develop a marketing plan that succeeds even if it never goes beyond that. If this sounds more like planning a small business than planning a movie, that’s sort of the point.

I wouldn’t make another indie the way I did The Nines. I’d figure out how I was going to make money before figuring out how to get money.

Amen. Pass the sacra-mental wine, please.

From Nikki Finke: Indie Filmmakers Speak Out

From Nikki Finke's DHD blog come these quotes from a variety of people involved in the indie film industry. I would debate that industry category with them because I think in many cases these people work with or for the studios and not independently. That said, there's some stuff here that's worth it. I'll comment (rant, kvetch) as appropriate.

1. Change the title of your indie film to begin with an “A” or a number to get higher placement on iTunes.

A little togue-in-cheek but interesting.

2. “Experiment and try new ways of getting your indie film out there.”

Well, duh...

3. Clark Hallren, Managing Director of the Entertainment Industries Group for JP Morgan Securities warned, “Guys it’s tough. Phenomenal events that statistically cannot happen did happen: we’re at an interesting point in the business.”

4. Lisa Nitti of Greenberg Traurig offered a financing checklist and the necessary groundwork that indie producers must complete to have a shot at getting money: a preliminary financing plan, a solid budget and schedule, and an understanding of Hollywood guild requirements.

Again, duh! This is like saying, "Nazis are bad."

5. Foreign pre-sales are not as readily available as in years past.

Foreign pre-sales haven't been readily available for quite awhile - like 5 years... and yet smart, high-concept, financially responsible genre movies work.

6. Established indie producers with a successful track record have a somewhat easier time than newcomers in getting attention from international sales companies.

Duh - fest.

7. Genre always makes a difference. Forget costume dramas and spoofs.

Yes, because when taken together the horror, scifi, thriller and action-adventure genres account for about 60% of all the genres produced.

8. “Indie producers must have names that mean something to TV worldwide; [before pre-sales can be made] international distributors need time to talk to TV folks who are covering 60%-70% of minimum guarantees,” said Edward Noeltner, President of Cinema Management Group.

This is financially responsible and practical because it elevates the profile of the picture in its most financially viable arena - television. The actor fees are lower and yet more people recognize the star because they invite him or her into their home every week.

9. The number of banks involved in indie film financing has constricted and greatly impacted funds available. Previous to the financial market meltdown, there were 30 to 35 players. That number has been cut by 2/3s.

10. Financiers basically want a return on their investment. “I encourage indie producers to understand their film’s audience as much as they can. Understand what you mean when you pitch project. I want to support a film, but I care about capital and return on that capital. I just want to get my money back,” explained banker Hallren.

Find the audience that will support the film. Then, make the film. Don't make a movie then figure out there's no audience for it.

11. Risk tolerance by investors is at an all-time low. "We’re all in a back-to-basics environment,” advised Danny Mandel, Managing Director of Newbridge Film Capital. “We won't return to where we were; now investors are all about preservation of capital.”

Pulp movies sell. That's as basic as it gets.

12. Mandel predicted that by 2010 indieprods could see more capital available.

And then they won't need distributors because they'll be distributing via server themselves.

13. In indie producers favor: distributors will always need new product to fill pipelines.

See #12 above.

14. At the Cannes Festival, Mandel met five international distributors who wanted a movie with "Wedding" in the title.

Zombie Wedding? Blood Wedding? My Wedding to a Monster?

15. New financing models are having some success, says Danae Ringelmann, Co-Founder of IndieGoGo. She cited documentary producer Robert Greenwald as an example of a new paradigm: Greenwald needed $200,000 to finance his Iraq For Sale. He turned to his substantial email distribution list. Nine days and four emails later, he had raised $276,000. Think of it as “raising money Obama-style,” suggested Ringelmann.

Pay attention to this. It's a subscription model by any other name and the money is sweet.

16. Build a fan base for an indie film before it’s even made.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Lay the groundwork for the content - then deliver.

17. The disappearance of a number of local and regional film critics is a major concern because it makes it tough to launch an indie movie, noted Lawrence Bender, the Oscar-winning indie producer of Pulp Fiction, An Inconvenient Truth, and the upcoming Quentin Tarantino film Inglourious Basterds. So Bender said indie filmmakers must now be content with “tweets and the craziest things,” but not the critical insights of years past.

Blogs have risen to take this place on a regional level.

18. Roger Corman, the quintessential indie producer (Death Race 2000, Grand Theft Auto, Rock N' Roll High School) sees the Internet as a “ray of hope” for indie producers.

Pay attention. The man has powers.

19. Corman envisions a day when distributors and theaters are gone and an ASCAP-type organization collects revenues for indie producers.

I can see that.

20. Concensus advice on how to get an indie film made: never give up.

21. Finding a documentary subject that’s worth a two to four year commitment comes down to “you know it when you see it,” related Marina Zenovich, Director/Producer/Co-Writer of Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired, Director/Producer of Who Is Bernard Tapie?, Director/Producer of Independents Day Zenovich.

22. “Always good to get an idea from a financier,” quipped Davis Guggenheim, Director/Producer of It Might Get Loud, Gracie, and Director/Executive Producer of An Inconvenient Truth. Guggenheim was lucky enough to be pitched by financier Thomas Tull who asked, “Do you like the electric guitar?"

Yes, ask people what they are financing. Don't try to convince a beer drinker to drink wine. Convince him to try your brand of beer.

23. RJ Cutler, Filmmaker and President of Actual Reality Pictures (The September Issue, The War Room) noted that marketing and outreach for every documentary film is something of a riddle, but advised producers to investigate ancillary revenues. He pointed to Morgan Spurlock who had significant returns in the educational marketplace for his feature Super Size Me, which he cut down to an hour and created an accompanying curriculum and guide.

Movies aren't just movies. They are properties that can be re-purposed for a variety of functions and audiences.

24. Before an indie film gets to the marketplace, producers must know who the audience is for the film, counseled Dennis Rice, Founder of Visio' Entertainment. “If you can’t market your film, you shouldn’t make it. If there’s no audience, you can’t get a return on investment.”

Now where have I heard that before?

25. Once an indie producer knows who the film’s audience is, reaching them cost effectively is the next hurdle.

It's called the internet.

26. There’s no longer a one size fits all model for indie distribution; patterns and windows are changing as are the means of distribution. New strategies include video-on-demand, checkerboard release patterns, digital downloads via iTunes.

Be small. Be nimble. Be quick.

27. “There are at least 10 distribution structures out there, and new companies popping up,” offered Liesl Copland of William Morris Endeavor Entertainment's Global Finance and Distribution Group. Among the new companies she cited: Big Beach, End Game, and Zip Line. All have been smart about marketing spends, she says.

Yes, be smart about where to get the most bang for the buck.

28. Indie producers need to move past the old distribution model and learn from experimentation.

Yes. yes. yes.

29. Copland advised indie producers to think about own their own consumer habits when making movies in this kind of market “though clarity hasn’t surfaced in new revenue streams”.

How do you and your friends spend money? If that's where you spend money, don't you think it's a good possibility that you can find your audience there too? Again, find the audience then fulfill their needs with entertainment they will enjoy.

30. Ted Mundorff, CEO of Landmark Theatres, sees video on demand pre-release and then theatrical release is working for some indie titles like Steven Soderbergh’s The Girlfriend Experience. (Bubble ignited the trend. But Mundroff worries about cable companies saturating the market with titles.)

Again, experiment and report on what the results were. The scientific method.

31. David Straus, Co-Founder and CEO of Withoutabox (a division of IMDb.com), implored indie producers to find ways to connect directly to audiences. “You don’t have to throw a ton of money to push a film to an audience; in an ideal world, the audience pulls film to them.”

32. Aggregating an audience is the lynchpin of this new world order. But is it something that impresses banks enough to lend money? Doubtful.

So leverage the audience in other ways that makes getting money from banks unnecessary.

33. It’s not all doom and gloom despite the disappearance of studio-backed indie film divisions like Warner Independent.

Good riddance.

34. There is opportunity for indie producers as long as they don’t get hung up on a 35mm theatrical film release. Ira Deutchman, CEO of Emerging Pictures, explained: “With digital, we can begin to play around with release patterns.”

Be wise with your money. Besides who shoots on film anymore?

35. Deutchman also recommended that indie producers “aggregate your communities.” He finds that his network of theaters does well with Jewish, gay-themed and French films as well as those that are spiritual and have "Wedding" in the title.

Nuff said.

Wire Yourself In...

Recently Ted Hope over at TRULY FREE FILM posted his 38 Problems with Indie Film, and it's a good list. An excellent list even...but as I pointed out to him in the comments, he makes the mistake of thinking that we can recapture the 'glory days' of indie film.

As I pointed out, in my usual blunt MPB manner, that train has left the station.

And while I am far too young and way too sexy for my shirt to ever be called a curmudgeon(cough, cough), I also have to agree with many of the things in Jim McKay's guest post here.

Okay, Indie Film as we know it is screwed... good. It wasn't a good business anyway. Too whimsical, too full of itself to be a real business.

(and if any of you starts yelling out, "It's art, not business," you're an idiot. Any time you ask people for money for goods or services - it's a business)

So where do we take this business we call show?

Fortunately, there are many brilliant people out there, smarter than me even (cough, cough), who are rethinking how things are done in this digital age, and what promise that holds for each and every one of us of getting a ticket on the better, less expensive, train that takes your content to every place in the world there's wifi.

And they are Wired.

First off (H/T to Cousin Trevor up in the 'Peg) is David Byrne who discusses survival strategies in this new age.

Chris Anderson discusses this fundamental shift and what it means.

And while this article discusses automobiles, take out that word (or car, or vehicle) and substitute the word movie, tee vee, or series . You begin to see the possibilities of where media production is going.

Anderson puts it into focus:
(emphasis mine)

To all the usual reasons why small companies have an advantage, from nimbleness to risk-taking, add these new ones: The rise of cloud computing means that young firms no longer have to buy their own IT equipment, which helps them avoid having to raise money or take on debt. Likewise, the webification of the supply chain in many industries, from electronics to apparel, means that even the tiniest companies can now order globally, just like the giants. In the same way a musician with just a laptop and some gumption can accomplish most of what a record label does, an ambitious engineer can invent and produce a gadget with little more than that same laptop.

And while my Canadian brethren fight the good fight, I have to say the one thing they are ignoring (or at least not speaking of out loud):

"Only a fool fights in a burning house."

(Quote from Kang. Lesson learned by James T.)

So what does all this mean when taken as a whole? It means change. It means not thinking of media in the same way. It means doing different things outside your normal niche. It means pushing boundaries. It means you can stand on your own two feet.

It means Bootstraps don't chafe like Corporate or Government chains.

And there are those that will shout out, "But how do I make money at this?" Know that you aren't alone. Your own are questioning the old ways and coming up with new ones.

So connect the wires:

-- How DO you make money at this?
-- How can you MAKE it more efficient -- not only for yourself, but for others too?

You and your work are your business. Make it a good one, not one you have to tolerate because that's the way it's always been.

Read. Rethink. Let's discuss. Comments are Open as is the Bar.

And People Say There's No Money on The Web...

Maybe not right this second, but by jiminy there will be!

From our friends at New Tee Vee:

More than 40 percent of young adult U.S. households (ages 18 - 35) watch web video on their TV at least once a month, according to new numbers from In-Stat. The research firm predicts that by 2013, revenue from web-to-TV streaming services will hit $2.9 billion.

Web video in this instance is defined as any video coming from an Internet source (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, YouTube). In the next five years, In-Stat predicts that the number of U.S. broadband households watching web video on TV will grow to 24 million from 2.5 million today.

One of the drivers of this transition will be game consoles, which, as we saw from the 1 million Xbox subscribers who activated their Netflix streaming earlier this year, are proving to be a popular way to access web video on televisions. Currently, In-Stat says 29 percent of 25- to24-year-old game console owners use those devices to stream video from the Internet.

You will see movies and TV Direct 2 Netflix.
You will see movies and TV Direct 2 XBox.

That is, if you target your content to this growing revenue stream of viewers who like video games, comics, toys and SFX driven movies.

In fact, you could make a low budget movie (Under $500K) and also sell a tie-in comic, toys and possibly an iPhone app video game. Then you license out to international territories.

Oh, but that sounds too much like work. Better to go the traditional film festival route and neglect the target audience entirely. After all, a theatrical release is what's required for real filmmakers.

Wassamatta U?

Ted Hope has a great post today by guest blogger/filmmaker Jamie Stuart. I am going to pick at the post's carcass a bit, but there's plenty here to chew on throughout the weekend so go read the entire thing:

Now, however, the paradigm has shifted to a situation where filmmakers are making small, dirt-cheap movies for niches and their friends; the debut film isn't as important so much as slowly building a track record. In this model, indie film has essentially become regional folk art. I think we need to return to the prior model, but there are some things holding that up. Like:

Yes, it has shifted away from the bottleneck of just a few festival darlings making their way past the gatekeepers and out into the Elysian fields of the distribution marketplace. In the regional folk art metaphor you propose, you neglect to mention that now more people can participate from wherever they are at, instead of having to be in Los Angeles or New York or other large urban center. The bottleneck has widened (for good and for bad).

I think we need to re-think how movies are made. Micro-features and DIY productions use crews in a much different manner than movies made for 7-8 figures, and I think producers need to study what people like myself are doing...

Not that I expect larger budgeted productions to use the exact method I did (they wouldn't have to if they had money), but there's got to be something that can be learned and adapted from what I and others have done.

Absolutely! And how does one most effectively share these ideas, paradigms and innovations? Why through the internet of course!

Now, if you combine all of the above, you get another problem. It used to be that aspiring filmmakers started with a small budget, either on a short or a small feature, and that was used as a calling card to get a larger budget. The issue here is that due to the drop in budgets based on prosumer cameras and editing, producers don't seem to take those projects as seriously. What they mistake, however, is that you're getting an equivalent production value as before, only it costs a fraction of the amount. But producers aren't saying: "Wow! Look at what so-and-so did for so little. Imagine what they could do with a larger budget? I want to work with him!" Instead, they seem to be looking at the budget, and on that basis alone, writing it off: "Let me know when you've moved on to bigger things, but for now, you're a small fry."

I would agree that this is ture in the United States, but there is a growing movement of production and distribution professionals in the UK that are embracing these micro-budget productions and filmmakers with financing and expertise. We cannot count that out.

The internet is great for sales and marketing, but it's a lousy delivery method. The quality is terrible. I've never looked at the internet as anything other than a means to get exposure and establish myself -- so I can get OFF the internet and make real features.

People understand the quality loss. They measure it against the convenience and are just fine with it. Excuse me but exactly what is "a real feature?"

I think a lot of the indie community still believes in the film festival model: If you're a serious filmmaker, you need to submit to festivals. They seem almost fundamentalist in this regard. And it's holding up progress.

Yes, it is. The indie filmmakers have become the establishment they rebelled against in the 80's and early 90's.

All of that said, I'm still of the belief that the biggest problem in indie film right now is simply the product. When indie film was booming in the '80s/'90s, young people like myself were drawn to it because it seemed to be the most creative arena in filmmaking. Not now. Young people look to big FX blockbusters as the most creative arena. People now equate indie film with poor production values, cheap-looking handheld photography, amateurish acting, etc. They look at it as a joke. I approached the prospect of DIY filmmaking from the view that ambitious films could now be made inexpensively -- I've always used tripods, dollies, cranes, special FX. But DIY filmmaking on the whole went in the opposite direction -- small, handheld slices of life. And while that aesthetic certainly has its place, it's never going to find a larger audience, in my opinion. Until we shift out of this phase and DIY filmmakers start creating ambitious pictures at dirt prices, the movement will remain derided. And until the bigger people start lifting up the small, there's going to remain a major class divide.

(emphasis mine)

Absolutely. I double that for web series that rely on the backbone of being parodies of existing material. If I see another 20-something wannabe comedy web series set in an office, apartment complex or similar locale - I am going to get violent. Ditto for the trope of directly addressing the camera or the simply allowing the "action" to unfold without camera movement or editorial. It's lame.

Dr. Horrible (which I loved) has been a hit on the web NOT because it was entirely original, but because everything else up to that point was lame. The web audience deserves better. They want better and yes, they will pay for it.

I am writing a movie now, that while not entirely original (what film is?) is geared to push the boundaries in terms of production value, energy and fun. A creative new look at some old tropes in genre film. That's what we - the pulp filmmaking community - needs.

As well as effective ways of getting that new pulp out there so people can embrace it...at their convenience.

Netflix Announces Indie Film Contest ala 'Project Greenlight'

From Video Business:

JAN. 8 | LOS ANGELES—Netflix, actor Josh Brolin and Los Angeles-based nonprofit Film Independent (FIND) today announced a film competition that this summer will award $350,000 in cash and film services to an aspiring filmmaker.

The largest U.S. movie-rental service via mail, Netflix will contribute $150,000 to the "Netflix FIND Your Voice Competition," while companies such as Eastman Kodak, Deluxe Entertainment Service and Panavision will contribute the rest in products and services, the companies and actor announced in a press conference at the W Hotel here today. Netflix will distribute the winning film on both DVD and in video-streaming form.

Not a bad gig if you can get it, but here's my one problem with it:

They are using film (from Kodak), film processing (from Deluxe - Hi Steve!) and transfer, and a DI (Digital Intermediate courtesy EFilm). Read more details here.
So that means you have $150K for production and edit, and $250K for camera package and post-processing.

If only you could eliminate the need for the film stock processing, transfer and DI color grading so you could streamline the whole process taking dailies direct to edit. You could take the time saved as well as the moolah and put it back onscreen.

But I guess you can't do that.

Oh wait. You can.

Gee, you would think that Hollywood indie folk would be all about innovation, and cutting costs, and putting the value up on the screen where it belongs... but I guess they're not.

Then again.

Kids, always always put your dollars onscreen. Think smart, not with your pocketbook. Learn to question things after you've studied them.

I wish the person who wins this contest the best of luck. Go get 'em, and show them your story. This is a great opportunity for someone to get in there with a fresh perspective and tell a whopper of a yarn.

I just wish you didn't have to use film to do it.

Edit to add: I realize I'm being the "my beer is half-empty guy" here. I apologize for that. No one wants to be that guy. Again, I wish everyone who participates in this the best of luck. Make it the best opportunity you can.

Traditional Indies Tank Big...Honestly

Note that I say "traditional" in that headline...

It's been a hell of a year for some folks with whom I've consulted. A lot of employee slates have been wiped clean. The herd has been culled. (Insert another ugly "a lot of people lost their jobs" metaphor here)

I'm still here.

With you.

Working on 2009 and beyond.

This isn't a "I told you so!" post. I took some hits. Major kicks to the wallet. Went from small nest egg to yolk on the floor. But there is a reason I still have an apartment and shirts to wear, and a job to go to...and a strategy for the future.

It's because I was honest with myself and didn't lie to myself regarding any movie I've worked on. I didn't lie to myself and throw a lot of money at a film or a film company which I KNEW (or at least were told) had limited potential or appeal, hoping somehow the problems would go away. I was honest with myself, my clients and my colleagues.

I treated it like it should be treated - a business - respectfully.

Honesty goes a long way. It slices through double talk like a hot knife through butter. It gets you labeled as "difficult" or "demanding." It gets you exasperated sighs or awkward silences during meetings when you question the validity of a strategy...

But damned if it doesn't save your ass every now and then. Honesty allows you to keep working while other "cooperative, nice" sweethearts are shown the door.

So, if you want to give yourself a gift this year - give yourself some honesty.

Like herpes it's the gift that keeps on giving.

(I'm going to be quiet now because I have a webcomic to write this weekend)

The Evolution of 'Indie Film" : From Limited Entertainment to Manufactured Product

Mike Curtis recently posted a rant on the ProVideo Coalition website regarding the death of Indie film. As I promised, I'm going to pull out some bits and pieces from his post and try and address the issues he has with the topic.

"As somebody mentioned in an email to me about this, moviemaking digital tools came along to help reduce (some) costs of moviemaking, but other digital tools came along that stripped away the marketability of those films even faster (bootleg downloads, too much content, competition for time from internet/cable/DVDs/games/etc.) and the math isn’t working out favorably right now.

Supporting evidence below:

update - a lot of the commenters (and about 60+ comments so far) are saying indie film has ALWAYS been tough and risky. I AM NOT DISAGREEING. I am saying it has become ESPECIALLY brutal in the last couple of years, the non-viability is ramping up, making the proposition even worse. Also, personally, I’m defining indie as non-studio fare, probably self-financed or independently financed, and seeking distribution by any means profitable. What are YOUR experiences with distro? Chime away in the comments! I’ve posted and rebutted extensively in the comments as well, more stuff in there. End update."

Little history/sociology here:

The independent film business has transitioned from a business that looked to distribution as the holy grail (In order to make money you had to get distributed somehow) to marketing and brand awareness as the holy of holies. From "getting it seen" to "getting it seen by the right audience."

The fact is there are many free tools for you to now distribute your film in myriad ways and means. One only has to look at the "Marketing & Distribution" area in my sidebar and you can see the opportunities there.

In regards to piracy, we have anecdotal evidence that downloading isn't harming the industry the way people think it has. It's simply culling the herd in a more efficient manner than critics' reviews or press. Piracy - in order for it to be eliminated - is going to have to be rethought from the ground up. The same way that indie film financing has to be rethought.

So here's some (re)thoughts:

1. Quit thinking of a theatrical release as necessary for the success of an indie film. Sure it could be used as a special event sort of one-time affair, but the numbers show that any theatrical release these days, unless extremely lucky and targeted, LOSES money for the producer and the studio and is simply a marketing campaign for the DVD and other media where the real money is to be found.

2. Find your audience first, then make the movie. Any entrepreneur will tell you that the best businesses are the ones that fill their niche really well. The problem with indie film is producers/filmmakers very rarely figure out who they are playing to and why. They are a product that no one feels the need to want.

3. Quit thinking like the studios. Seriously. You are better, and more efficient than that. You don't need a film print. You don't need newspaper advertising. You don't even need to pay for publicity. You just need to connect with your audience and deliver them the entertainment they want, the way they want it. Above, Mike talks about his friend whose film was pirated on GoogleVideo. I sent that filmmaker an email and hope to hear from him about his experience because deep down in the back of my dark pulp marketing mind, I think there were ways he could have used the pirates the way they used his film.

4. Perhaps if we started to think of entertainment along the lines of a magazine publishing model instead of a production-distribution model, then maybe we would be better off.

More on all that later.



1st in this series.

Death Of Indie Film - Yet Again!

Mike Curtis of HD for Indies goes on a self-confessed rant regarding the death of indie film as a business model.

There's a lot to digest in there especially as there are 60+ comments that are for/against his premise that Indie film as a business is "deader than fried chicken. "

This will become the basis for a series of posts by me dissecting some of the assumptions and statements he makes --

- regarding piracy and the internet.
- his "bad math" of indie moviemaking, based in part on Mark Gill's speech, which I dissected here.
- where to spend your money (onscreen and marketing)
- Rumors v. facts and figures
- Pitfalls and thought traps...

Mike and I disagree on a lot of things, but he makes a lot of valid points and asks the question that needs asking: "Where do we go from here?"

So go read the post, read the comments, and get ready to crawl under the hood of "indie film" (whatever that term means, which is part of the problem).

Comics and Movies are Both in a Recession. Learn From It.

Valerie D'Orazio's blog OCCASIONAL SUPERHEROINE has a top ten list for STRATEGIES FOR THE COMIC INDUSTRY IN A RECESSION:

Much of it applies across the board and not just during a recession. My comments will be below and in Orange.


1. For God's Sake Entertain These People!
In the Great Depression, movie studios thrived, producing entertainment for the masses that made them forget their troubles. A movie ticket is $10+. A comic is less than $4. But you have to entertain these people! You have to create compelling storylines. You can't depend on that same fan base you've been handing lukewarm milk to for the last several years because they're just too blah to change their buying habits. Blah and complacency is out. Your audience: thrill them or lose them.

Entertain first. That is the credo that all pulpsters must live by, as it is the gold upon which we trade. You can't lecture, you must engage.

2. Go Back To The Basics.
Look up Joseph Campbell's The Hero's Journey. Get down to the basics of what makes a compelling story. Heroes, villains. Protagonists, antagonists. Problem/solution. If you need almost a whole paragraph to explain your story or event, you have screwed up somewhere along the way.

This goes to accessibility. Your audience must "get it" within the opening moments of your movie, show, story and sign up for the ride you promise them. If they have to weigh their options then you've lost.

3. They Can't Afford Gigantic Crossovers
They can't. I mean, they did; but now they can't.

Simple entertainment done stylishly. No catches. No "buts."

4. Lose Your Pride
Whether your pride is not wanting to reach out past your comfort zone in terms of readership, your hatred of digital media, your irrational bias against one thing or another, or whatever -- if it is standing in the way of sales, you are useless. Get over it.

If your story sucks, admit it and move on. If you think that your movie deserves a theatrical premiere then it would have had one already. It doesn't deserve it. Make your money back for your investors the fastest and best ways possible and move on to the next project. One movie is a whim. Many movies is a career.

5. Unsure? Make It Digital
If you are unsure about your product -- if you feel it is really iffy -- if you are a small publisher and you are going to risk everything to print just this one fucker -- for God's sake PLEASE put it out digital first. It can be digital with a roll-in hardcopy plan. But make it digital. The direct market won't hate you for it. They hardly got room on their shelves for a lot of that stuff, anyhow.

Generate your audience in every way possible. Make it a digital event (Dr. Horrible). Whatever you do - don't spend money needlessly.

6. Are You Ballast?
Take a good look at yourself in your job -- especially if you are working for a larger company. Are you expendable? Are there "five" of you? Do you find yourself working on "special projects" that are always put last on the food chain? Do you have no idea on God's green earth why you are at your job, or why they are paying you? Get out on your own terms, and be in a good position to negotiate your next job. Don't just wait for the inevitable. Be proactive.

They say, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." The reverse is also true, "Have more then one hen laying eggs for you." If your job could be one of the first cut - then time is long overdue to have multiple streams of income you can manage.

This is especially true regarding your film. Think about all the things you can sell with it. It's not just a movie - it's a property and it needs to be movable all around the media-sphere. If your movie is just a movie - don't make it.

7. Are Your Comics Ballast?
Take a good look at the comics your company produces. Now, which ones are awesome, and which ones are "filler?" Which ones did you do as a favor for an old buddy which aren't that great but you promised him, and which ones are awesome? I mean, you can do the favor, but make that a one-shot, don't make that a three-issue prestige format. Use your brain. Which comics make you go "wow," and which ones, by your own admission, are "born to die?" You can't afford to put out "born to die" comics. What is it that Obama said? "No more pork barrel." You need to cut your pork.

Always understand your break even point and what it's going to take to get there. What are people going to realistically pay for your media? Why should they?

8. Stop Making Your Heroes Villainous
We don't need heroes that are assholes right now. The assholes are the ones that fucked the audience financially and took away their homes, their jobs, and their X-Mas bonuses. They want real Heroes to help them out of this mess.

In other words - don't be subtle. Yes, characters have nuances, but don't violate their core concept and belief systems (unless you can do it fantastically well and logical). To do that violates the audience's trust, and that's a no-no.

9. Have A Hook
If it doesn't have a "hook," don't do it right now.
Examples of hooks:
* awesome artist
* awesome writer
* topical
* controversial
* of superior artistic merit (possible award winner)
* unique

Ditto.

10. Stop Writing These Gloom And Doom Articles About How The Comic Book Industry Is Going To Collapse
You're really scaring the shit out of everyone. I mean, you should write them, it is topical. But it's like feeding this already jumpy nervous ready-to-totally-lose-it climate.

Yes, quit writing these articles about how the indie movie business is terrible. It's not. It's just hard work. The movies that can't get financed now are those that don't deserve financing in the first place - poorly conceived, poorly written, no marketable hooks...

This Headline Is What Is Wrong With The Indie Film Business:

From Variety:

More Star Power at Sundance