Showing posts sorted by date for query filmmaking budget. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query filmmaking budget. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Report From Them That's Doing It: CHANNEL MIDNIGHT

Way back in the day, I used to read THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS and one of my favorite columns was called Report From Them That's Doing It.It was a profile column where they would shine the spotlight on people who were out there living their dream. In the case of ME News it concerned people who built their own homes and lived responsibly using alternative methods for food production, energy and shelter.

Well I've appropriated that title to let you know about Channel Midnight Releasing, people who are distributing their films themselves.  Creating their own sustainable business model for their creative work.  From their press release to me several days ago:


Hello Friends,

We are really excited to announce a partnership between our production company The Work Room Productions (Lisa Wisely & Chase Tyler) and James Felix McKenney’s MonsterPants Movies. As both companies plan on making more independent films in the near future, we decided to create a small distribution company called CHANNEL MIDNIGHT that would be responsible for getting those films out into the world. We are excited about all the opportunities and methods that are now available to filmmakers and we plan to take full advantage of them all.  

We will be putting a completely re-mastered version of Jim’s first feature CANNIBALLISTIC (complete with bonus scenes including the short film WAKING DEAD) this Fall and we are pleased to announce the release of fellow filmmaker Nathan Wrann’s BURNING INSIDE right now.

As I am sure you could imagine, we don’t have a gigantic marketing budget to push this movie so we’re turning to friends and colleagues to ask for help.
Please help spread the word about BURNING INSIDE and Channel Midnight.

·         You can find more about Channel Midnight and find Burning Inside DVD is available for sale on www.channelmidnight.com
·         T he DVD is also available on Amazon.com here http://www.amazon.com/BURNING-INSIDE-Michael-Wrann/dp/B003MHMU88/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1274735362&sr=8-1
·         Digital download of the complete film is available on our official store at http://www.monsterpants.net/channel/shop.html
·         The movie can be rented on YouTube http://bit.ly/BI-YT
·         Mobile and other streaming rentals/VOD are coming online over time.

The film has gotten fantastic reviews (see highlight below). Please see visit our news section for the most up to date information and reviews. http://channelmidnight.blogspot.com/

We also started an affiliate program. If you have a website or blog and would like to post some banners to support the movie, you can actually make money. Visit this to find out how the program works and please feel free to email me if you have any questions. http://www.monsterpants.net/channel/affiliate.html

 If there is anything you can do to help spread the word, please do. We also have a discount code for friends and family, feel free to use the discount code REVENGE2010 on the Channelmidnight.com store.

What the reviewers have to say about BURNING INSIDE:

"impressive...writer-director Nathan Wrann unleashes an unsettling psychological mystery, imbues his story with a unique look and pace and works wonders... a challenging and altogether harrowing experience for discerning horror fans."

- Steven Puchalski, SHOCK CINEMA

“BURNING INSIDE is a raw and grinding midnight movie, unsavory grim in parts then slowly contemplative.”

- Marcus Stiglegger, DEADLINE MAGAZINE

"There is an awareness of filmmaking as a storytelling medium at work here that you will not find in a multiplex... A wholly original and daring piece of cinema. It's rare that acting, cinematography and editing work in such perfect harmony to create something this unique... Highly recommended to lovers of smart films."

- Greg Lamberson, FEAR ZONE

Please spread the word and thanks for your continued support!

Best,

Lisa, Chase & James

Pulp Filmmaking: Tech is no Excuse. The Answer Lies in Perspective

The only thing separating a bad production from a good production is the level of commitment from the filmmaker. It is not dependent on the budget. The availability of the technology and the knowledge is equal.

Example below: 





So when someone sends me a link, or a screener and says, "Well, we didn't have access to this or that," or "We couldn't fit it into our budget," I have to be a bit skeptical, especially since they are so many really skilled people across the world sharing their experience.

So, since the tech and knowledge base is equal -  the difference has to be with the story you're telling, and the POV you're using to tell it. Work on those aspects. Hone it down to the bone so you've crafted something that's both immediately familiar, yet unique.  A good example would be Dr. Horrible - a melodramatic superhero story told from the perspective of the supervillain.

From the feature film side - I would say the upcoming Splice is a good example of a movie that takes a familiar, accessible premise and gives it a new perspective.  Frankenstein by any other name...

But that POV has to also extend to how you distribute the film. It has to be unique as well, so it has the best chance to reach its intended audience.  With more and more people purchasing Ipads, Iphones, PSPs, PS3s and so on, the opportunities to get your film directly to your audience has never been greater.

So if you want people to respond to your work, step back and give it a new perspective. Then go out and research all of the FREE tools you can use to realize it. 

They're out there.

(video found via Pleasure for the Empire)

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Add This to Your Pulp Film Philosophy

From Fast, Cheap Movie Thoughts' interview with Mark Stolaroff:

What lessons can a No Budget filmmaker take away from today's Hollywood?

MARK: Wow! That's a hard one. I spend a good deal of time teaching what I call The Alternate Universe of Filmmaking (coined by Peter Broderick), whereby the rules of Independent Low-Budget Filmmaking are exactly the opposite of studio filmmaking.


And as far as storytelling for independents, I'm a big believer in hitting them where they ain't. If you try to compete with Hollywood on their own turf, (like making a conventional romantic comedy), you're going to get clobbered. Hollywood seems to be teaching us that if you throw a lot of money at a problem, you'll succeed. That you don't need to be unique, you just need recognizable elements to sell a film.


I guess if I can come up with one thing, it would be that there's a core audience for every film. And the definition of a Core Audience is the audience who doesn't give a shit how good your film is. Studios have been making bad films that appeal to core audiences--large core audiences--for years. They may be 15-year-old boys or 15-year-old girls, but they can be very passionate, even about the worst films. Independents need to realize that there are core audiences for their films too.

And since making a good film is so damn hard--nearly impossible, especially on a no-budget--it is vital that filmmakers work hard to discover who that core audience is and figure out cost effective ways to reach them. And since these no-budget films won't have big stars in them or be based on comic book heroes, these core audiences will be small. They'll be niche audiences, not defined by demographics like "males 18-49". If a filmmaker can properly court the core audience for their film, they'll succeed even if they don't make a perfect film.
Don't compete with Hollywood, find a niche they aren't serving well and make it yours.

(But I disagree with the notion you can't make a film with "comic book heroes" in it for no budget)

Monday, May 24, 2010

The Frugal Filmmaker

There's a lot of things I'd like to cover in our "Make Your Own Media" mandate here at Pulp 2.0.  It's fun pointing people to 'news you can use' to make your own films, comics, books and so forth, and hopefully inspire you to get off your sofa and put your imagination to work.

 (Hmmm.. "Put your Imagination to Work" -- I like that. It goes on a t-shirt)

Unfortunately there are only so many hours in the day - and I do have to keep the Pulp HQ here stocked in whiskey and cigars - so I can't cover everything I'd like. Despite what you may have heard, I'm only human.

(Though I do have powers...) 

One of those areas that I can't cover in too much depth is DIY filmmaking tools and technique...but fortunately for you there's Scott Eggleston aka The Frugal Filmmaker.

Scott goes through a whole assortment of DIY filmmaking tricks and hacks that keep your budget low and your creativity high. For example from his last weekly Facebook newsletter:

Scott Eggleston
Scott EgglestonMay 23, 2010 at 8:03pm
Subject: Weekly Recap Link List 5-23-10
Sorry I'm a little late with the list this week. Thanks to all who have been inviting their friends to this group. Now up to 229 members! Yes!

Creating DIY sand bags for your light stands
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;www.instructables.com/id/Creating-DIY-sandbags-for-your-light-stands/

Guerilla filmmaker's backpack
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;blog.anvilpictures.com/?p=538

DIY Stedicam
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;rjwilx.blogspot.com/2010/05/diy-steadicam.html

Ripley, my handheld rig
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1992210#post1992210

The Frugal Filmmaker, Episode 8: 3 Point Lighting
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5uybmobdFY

Build your own lenses
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;www.diyphotography.net/build-your-own-lenses

Microbudget filmmaking sucks because you are doing it wrong!
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;d2dvd.blogspot.com/2010/05/microbudget-filmmaking-sucks-because.html

Felicia Day on building an internet audience
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;www.youtube.com/watch?v=id23nVuO5U0

How to pitch investors
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com/2010/05/how-to-pitch-investors.html

Cops nearly shoot actor playing convenience store robber
http://www.facebook.com/l/4c41d;gothamist.com/2010/05/05/cops_nearly_shoot_actor_playing_con.php


Scott goes through and finds the sort of stuff you need to succeed at making your own movies.  Hopefully you'll learn so much you'll be able to contribute back to The Frugal Filmmaker . In any case, go over and join the group (and tell him a bastard sent ya!)

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Microbudget Filmmaking Sucks Because You Are Doing it Wrong!

Recently, there was a list by filmmaker Mynette Louie that has made the rounds of the film web called "Why Microbudget Filmmaking Sucks" . The list is one where Louie recounts all of the disadvantages and advantages of microbudget filmmaking.  Many of those  disadvantages are also listed as advantages in the list so really it's a matter of attitude and approach that seems to make the difference...

And that seems to be a problem for some people.  They can't redefine 'film' to fit their own needs and wants or the needs and wants of the audience. In many filmmakers' heads, film exists only at the local theater where someone has to pay 8-10 dollars or more to see and experience it.  If media history has taught us anything it's that film is far more flexible than we give it credit. If film were as inflexible as many would make it seem then we would never have had the TV movie, the Direct-2-Video or the DVD Premiere.

Film is fluid. It fits into the glass you place it in... and just like beer or soda you can sell a lot of it.

But again, short-sighted filmmakers are putting up a huge cover charge at the door when they seek theatrical only.  I call "ego at work." It's not good business sense.  It's not good marketing.  It's outdated - especially for microbudget filmmaking.

True story:  When we launched SCARECROW it was with the idea that we were going to make most of the money back because it was A) made inexpensively ($100K +/-);  B) we were staying as far away from theatrical as possible, and C) we were going to sell it internationally prior to its having any sort of domestic DVD release.

No festivals. No reviews. No retailer support.  We had a great concept, a great poster, a good trailer and a movie that was still in post-production. Our goal was to get half the production budget back at AFM, and then the rest at Cannes...

On Day Two of AFM,  I got a call at my office telling me to start work on a sequel idea.  We were 3/4 financed and had more people interested for other territories.  By the end of the market, we were in the black and had many people interested in a sequel.

Then we used the response to promote the film stateside. We made these great folders with screener discs in them and sent them to the retail buyers.  There was discussion of trying a screening but in looking at the expenses we nixed it.  Too expensive.

Then we got a deal at Wal-Mart. It was a tight squeeze on the profitability (they strike a hard bargain) but the order was huge. We shipped a ton of discs to Walmarts around the country, and the discs were placed on the shelf at a price of $8.99. Fangoria ran an article on the movie, surely the fans would rush the shelves.

But the DVDs?  They sat there. Some went off the shelf to be sure, but overall we were looking at some big returns.

Then WalMart had a bright idea.  They placed Scarecrow in the bargain bin at $4.99.

And people picked it up... a lot.

WalMart was happy - they were making a profit on their purchase. We were happy - we were making a profit on their order.  Fans were happy - they got their film and took it home where they could enjoy it (with a six-pack)...

They were so happy that WalMart renewed their order and asked about the sequel which by this time we were promoting domestically and internationally. We also discussed making it a trilogy (which I didn't contribute to except for some artwork direction)

By the time it was all over with the distributor had made over $1,000,000 on a $300k investment that never went theatrical. These movies were also shown on the SciFi Channel as a double feature which inspired us to release them again as a 'Double Creature'  (though I was overruled on that bit of title business and they were released as a 'Double Feature') which made some more money for the company.


Bottom line to all of this is: Don't think that there's only one way to write, produce, distribute and screen your film. Rules were made to be broken and if you're insightful and entrepreneurial about it - the opportunities are endless.  If I were to make a microbudget movie tomorrow, I would never think of a theatrical release until way after the film has been released elsewhere - like torrents, IPad, IPhone, Playstation Network, VOD, Netflix, Amazon, MSN, Hulu or elsewhere (or all at once). 

That's where the audience is growing, evolving, and business-wise it makes cents... which is more than you'd make if you did it the old way because at internet speed those pennies add up quickly.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

The Only (Pulp) Filmmaking Advice You'll Ever Need

Occasionally good buddy Jim Henshaw will send me an email... well, that's not quite right.  It's not quite mail. It's more like a signpost pointing the way to something good, or a simple question that usually takes me several paragraphs to answer fully.  There's often no "How ya doin?" No Chatty Cathy aspect to his email - just the pulp. 

He cuts straight to the bone that Mr. Henshaw - yes, he does.

So when I get an email from Jim - I know it's something important, useful and often profound in its elegant simplicity.  The following hit my Inbox a few minutes ago and the article linked pretty much sums up my philosophy of indie/pulp/low budget film making - hell, media making - and is...

The only film making advice you really need

Print it.

Learn it.

Live it.

Edit to add:  I almost missed this portion of the web page scrolling through the comments. The author of the article - Matt - sums it all up quite nicely as to why he wrote this article in the first place:

 So why do I really post this information? Mostly because I get really aggravated working for people who don’t know this stuff already. I get alot of jobs from people who go on and on about nebulous “film theory” concepts. Those are usually the jobs that turn into 18 hour days, go over budget, run out of money, and I get short changed.

Those are the jobs where the AD and Script Supervisor stop the whole production for 4 hours because they aren’t sure that the layout of the beer bottles on the table matches the last scene .

Those are the people who feel like a $1000 leather coat is the only way to express the lead characters personality (but sorry, we had to blow the catering budget for the next two days to buy it).
Those people are the “noise” you are talking about…it’s the noise I’m trying to get rid of.

I probably have half a dozen films that I can’t put on my resume. They’ve never been finished. They’ve all went so over budget, they went into post and never came out.

On the other hand….television and commercial are a dream to work with. They always finish the project. Maybe there is a hard shadow on the wall in a shot or two, or the lighting color temp is a little off. But at the end of the day there is a finished product.

For digital filmmakers on low budgets, thinking like a “filmmaker” when it comes to production is only going to lead to failure. My goal is to get people to think more like a commercial producer. Do the best you can, but nothing is sacred except the budget and the deadline.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Jon Reis: New Media Order Manifesto

From Indiewire news:

John Reiss, filmmaker turned author of the new book THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX OFFICE recently gave a speech at the CPH:DOX forum in Copenhagen. In that speech he outlines a manifesto of sorts derived from the work he researched for his book and his own experience:

"But just as a way of introducing myself – I will give you a brief introduction to my own horror story.

In 2007, I was at the Tribeca film festival where I was trying to sell my documentary “Bomb It.” We did everything by the old school book, kept the screeners a secret, we spent $20,000 launching the film at the festival, with the result of packed houses and hundreds of people turned away. After all the excitement, what we had were a few $10,000 all rights deals that we rejected. A week after Tribeca, our film was available for sale on Canal Street — as a bootleg.

A number of lucky films each year will still get overall deals that make some kind of financial sense for them. However these deals are not available to the vast majority of filmmakers at this time. We are in the midst of a new world order or crisis."

I have taken portions of Jon's manifesto and reposted them here. I urge you to go and read the more detailed aspects in the original post on IndieWire.

1. KNOW YOUR FILM/KNOW YOURSELF. EVERY FILM IS DIFFERENT AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH


The studio model of distribution was created because it made sense for large mass market films, and for a time it worked for some independent films as well.

However each film is different, and many independent films did not fair well within the studio machine – because they were not marketed to their unique audience.

2. CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD MARKETING


As an iconoclastic, ex punk rock anarchist neo Marxist who most recently made a documentary about graffiti and the battle over visual public space, I feel that I have come about as far as anyone could come in this embrace of marketing.

I would argue that the biggest problem facing independent film is not one of distribution – it is one of marketing. It is one thing to put your film out into the world, it is another to get people to know about it, and want to watch it.

It is not a matter of changing your work to meet a supposed market. But to consider what kinds of audiences might be interested in your work and seek to cultivate them.

The artificial divide between art and commerce must be eliminated.

3. DETERMINE YOUR AUDIENCES AND HOW TO REACH THEM FROM INCEPTION


Many independent filmmakers for many years have made films without thinking about who the audiences for their films might be. Or their ideas about audiences are much too general. Alternatively the studios have erred on the other side and catered to a mass audience and left any form of specialty taste behind.

START THE PROCESS AT INCEPTION
It can take a long time to engage your audience. As important as developing individual audience members are connections you can make with organizations that will help you expand your reach.

This audience engagement (aka marketing) will be much more organic if you integrate it into the whole life cycle of a film.

By starting during prep and production, you are allowing your audience to be involved in the creation of your work. This in turn invests them with the success of your film. This can happen through crowdsourcing of various creative aspects of the film or through crowdfunding the budget for the film. These engaged audience members will be active core promoters because they will feel a connection with your film.

4. WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED YOUR FILM, YOU ARE HALF DONE


Distribution and marketing can take as long and cost as much, or more than you spent on your film. The new 50/50 is not a revenue split but the mental shift that filmmakers must make about the filmmaking process.

Too many filmmakers have no resources for the second half of the process once they finish their films. It is a shame. Why make a brilliant wonderful film if you do not have the resources to get it to its audience.

This is not a hard and fast rule, remember all films are unique. But it is a good guideline when embarking on a project.

- Money for distribution and marketing should be budgeted for, raised and put into escrow. It is far better to have $50,000 to release a $50,000 film than to make a $100,000 film with no way of getting it to an audience.

- We must create new crew positions to be responsible for these tasks.


5. WE MUST TAKE BACK THE THEATRICAL EXPERIENCE AND REDEFINE IT AS LIVE EVENT/ THEATRICAL


Many people feel that the theatrical release is dead. It is too expensive and time consuming for independent filmmakers to engage. I believe it should be reborn.

Theatrical has come to mean a paid screening in conventional theaters with built in sound and visual projection that start on Friday – end Thursday with a review Friday in venuses that all sell popcorn.

Any booking of a film into a projected environment that does not meet the conventions outlined above falls into a category of “non-theatrical” or “semi-theatrical”. Given that these screenings are defined primarily in negative terms (non-, semi-,) it is not surprising that they receive a second-class status.

This classification of theatrical markets wasn’t always the case. In the earliest days of motion picture films, screenings occurred in a variety of spaces: storefronts, tents, public parks, churches. Films often toured with vaudeville acts or circuses or on their own.

6. CREATE PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT TO BUY

Is it a wonder that in the digital era people have stopped buying DVDs? For what is a DVD but a package of 0s and 1s in a crap plastic case.

We should look to musicians who have struggled with this conundrum for longer than we. Just as they are touring, many of them understand the difference between a physical product and a digital product and not only price them accordingly, but create added value to their physical products that cannot be replicated digitally.

Consider items that your fans and audience will want to purchase, it will be different for every film. Consider books of photographs that contain the DVD. Video games, Toys that can be printed on demand with new three dimensional printers.

7. DIGITAL RIGHTS ARE A MINEFIELD – BE CAREFUL


8. ENTERTAINMENT COMPANIES MUST MOVE BEYOND OLD WAYS OF DOING BUSINESS

Just as filmmakers must think out side the box in terms of the way they make and distribute and market films, companies need to do this as well.

Everyone is hurting in the birth of this new paradigm, so more than ever it is necessary to work together.

I believe it is important for filmmakers to collaborate with experienced and reputable companies in getting their work seen. Unless you are completely committed to DIY for philosophical reasons, or because you cannot find a company to partner with, I recommend DIY being a last resort. You will still end up doing more work than you can imagine on a release in a company supported split rights scenario.

In turn, companies need to embrace the split rights world we live in and stop being so omnivorous of our rights, if you are not going to provide monetary compensation for those rights or have no plans to you should not demand them.

Companies need to be more transparent about their ways of conducting business.

9. EXPLORE NEW WAYS TO TELL STORIES

We live in a fractured marketplace for media. Audiences have media and consumption preferences. You can’t bend them, you must accommodate them.

We must embrace new forms beyond the short and the feature and recognize that a film can be one part of a larger narrative universe that can be explored in a variety of mediums.

Think of a story that takes place via a feature film, but extends out over mobile devices, gaming consoles, social networks, through websites, text messages, downloadable clips, or iPhone apps. An exciting amount of creative potential awaits adventurous filmmakers.

Further, audiences want to participate with culture. By allowing them to participate, filmmakers open themselves up to a deeper relationship with their audiences.

Don’t be proprietary with your media. Give people assets — footage, sounds, environments. Let them re-edit your scenes.

Not all of your audience is going to engage in this way, but a devoted core who will.

10. WE MUST SUPPORT EACH OTHER AS A COMMUNITY

Filmmakers are lovers of film and our best allies. We must support one another’s work. The more generous you are – the more you will receive in return.

Similarly, if there is a film that you love – support it in other ways. Use your newly developed social networking skills to tell your own fans and followers why they should see the film. They are your followers, they are interested in your tastes and opinions, use that power to the good of the film community.

------------------------------------

Edit to add: Scott Kirsner has an audio interview with Jon here.

---------------------------------

Now - it may interest you to know that the movie that was discussed here (see the video at the bottom of that post) SITA SINGS THE BLUES (which you can watch on YouTube for free) is being released on DVD by Indiepix. From the press release:

"To get any film made is a miracle To conceive of a film like this is a greater miracle. Two Thumbs up!"
-- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times

Captivating, mesmerizing, spellbinding"

-- Chicago Reader

"An irrefutable argument for classic 2-D animation as a viable, vibrant low-budget arthouse medium for adults"

-- Variety

THIS DECEMBER, INDIEPIX PRESENTS THE GREATEST BREAK-UP STORY EVER TOLD -- A BEAUTIFULLY ANIMATED MASTERPIECE WHICH HAS PLAYED IN OVER 200 INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVALS AND CAPTURED 30+ AWARDS

Winner of the Prestigious Silver Bear for Best Feature Film at the Berlin International Film Festival in 2008 and numerous other awards, the international festival smash (with 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes), SITA SINGS THE BLUES makes its DVD debut this December courtesy of IndiePix Films. Available for $24.95srp

Sita is a Hindu goddess, the leading lady ofIndia’s epic the Ramayana and a dutiful wife who follows her husband Rama on a 14 year exile to a forest, only to be kidnapped by an evil king from Sri Lanka. Despite remaining faithful to her husband, Sita is put through many tests. Nina (the filmmaker Nina Paley herself) is an artist who finds parallels in Sita’s life when her husband – in India on a work project - decides to break up their marriage and dump her via email. Three hilarious Indonesian shadow puppets with Indian accents – linking the popularity of the Ramayana from India all the way to the Far East - narrate both the ancient tragedy and modern comedy in this beautifully animated interpretation of the epic.

In her first feature length film, Paley juxtaposes multiple narrative and visual styles to create a highly entertaining yet moving vision of the Ramayana. Musical numbers choreographed to the 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw feature a cast of hundreds: flying monkeys, evil monsters, gods, goddesses, warriors, sages, and winged eyeballs. A tale of truth, justice and a woman’s cry for equal treatment. SITA SINGS THE BLUES earns its tagline as "The Greatest Break-Up Story Ever Told."

DVD Extras: Director's commentary and interview, the bonus short "Fetch!" and more

Format : DVD/Single

Run time: 82 mins. + extras

Price: $24.95srp

Prebook/Street: November 17/December 15


-------------------------------------


This is an example of new media in action. Using free social networking tools and legal licensing tools to create a unique film experience that makes money for the producer. It's different, it's new (sort of) and it's about the manifesto that Jon speaks of above. There are companies out there that are understanding this is the new paradigm - free, split-rights deals, unique marketing, designed packaging, merchandising, letting go and allowing the fans their turn "at bat."

Monday, September 21, 2009

Ten Principles of Hybrid Distribution

From Peter Broderick via Indiewire:

(I'll run the list down - go to the source for the details - MPB)

1. Design a custom distribution strategy.
2. Split distribution rights
3. Choose effective distribution partners
4. Circumscribe rights
5. Craft win-win deals
6. Retain direct sales rights
7. Assemble a distribution team
8. Partner with non-profits and online communities
9. Maximize direct revenues
10. Grow and nurture audiences

While hybrid distribution is the state-of-the-art model for the New World, it is not the best approach for all independent films. Some movies are better served by an Old World all-rights deal with an experienced distributor. The best distributors have resources, relationships, and expertise, which can be essential to a wide theatrical release. They may also have advantageous deals in place for VOD, DVD, and digital rights. If filmmakers do due diligence (by speaking with other filmmakers involved with the distributor they are considering) and are able to negotiate a fair deal, their best choice may be an all-rights deal. Higher budget, more mainstream features are better suited for an Old World approach.

Hybrid strategies are ideal for most documentaries. Lower budget, more distinctive features, like “Good Dick,” may also be better off splitting up their rights in the New World. Features with strong core audiences can also do well implementing a hybrid model. “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” used a theatrical service deal to gross over $241 million domestically.

Just as the development of digital filmmaking tools in the ‘90s meant that no one could stop determined independents from making movies, the evolution of hybrid distribution in this decade means that no one can stop tenacious filmmakers from bringing their films into the world.


John August weighs in here.


Saturday, July 25, 2009

Watch Out For The Mercury Men! (The Almost 20Q Interview)


I have been fascinated with this project ever since I became aware of it. MM is a blend of Scifi, serials and pulp delivered to your laptop with the speed of the internet.

Here with our 2nd "Almost 20Q" Interview - I present Chris Preksta the Captain behind this pulpy production:


1. What is the origin of the Mercury Men?

The short: I noticed a serious lack of ray guns in modern entertainment. The long: I had been working on a feature project with a production company for nearly two years that just wasn't gaining any traction. I was getting really anxious not filming anything, and I've always wanted to film something with ray guns, so I pulled together a small crew in October 2007 and filmed a black and white short over the course of a day and half. It just followed this nameless office employee fighting off glowing men with a ray gun. We screened it at a few film festivals, including Comic Con, and it was really well received. I started thinking there may be an opportunity to tell a bigger story.

2. What drew you to creating a pulp / serial styled adventure ?

I love both the look/design and the style of storytelling, especially the cliffhangers. I'm also a huge fan of black and white.

For years I've been saying they ought to bring back serialized shorts proceeding feature films, similar to what Pixar has been doing for years. That way viewers get a bit more for their buck and studios get the opportunity to try out ideas, characters, actors/directors before committing to an expensive feature. Can you imagine going to see Iron Man 2 and before it they play a 5 minute Captain America live action short of him storming a Nazi base? And if you end it on a cliffhanger people will make sure to check out the next Marvel movie to see what happens. Maybe one day we'll get to see Mercury Men before the summer blockbuster at your local cineplex!

3. What was your writing and development process? Did you conceive it as a feature THEN break it down OR was it always conceived as a serial? What sparked the title? The idea?

I, along with story contributors Ben and Curt, work in outlines/index cards for a long time. Probably 75% of the process. Once you get into a script it's pretty easy to lose sight of the big picture. I really aimed for this story to work both as a serial and as a feature/DVD. Each episode works on it's own, but a few episodes together form a larger act.

The original short was called The Mercury Men so the title just carried over. It was the first and only title I came up with, and it was there from day one of the idea. When you hear or read it your brain sort of naturally poses the question "Who are the Mercury Men?" Which makes for great marketing/posters of course.

We were a little worried calling the new series The Mercury Men and even considered changing it for two reasons. One, I knew a lot of people would confuse us with The Mystery Men Ben Stiller movie. And two, further sequels won't always have the Mercury characters so it may be a little confusing later. While discussing a possible title change, Curt Wootton, who plays Jack, told a story of a Terminator 2 trading card he had as a kid with a picture of the liquid metallic T-1000. The card was subtitled "Mercury Man." He told us that name always struck him with a bit of awe. That settled the debate.

4. What's your background? (School? self-taught? location? experience?)

Went to a local film school here in Pittsburgh. Hated it. Everybody was making either really bad experimental video stuff or a rip off of Boondock Saints. I left after three years and took the money I was spending on tuition to help pay for my first feature film Captain Blasto.

5. Yes, Captain Blasto was your first foray into this arena - what did you learn from it (Production, marketing, distribution)?

I learned practically everything from it, both good and bad, and too much to list here. The most valuable lessons I took away were: the nuts and bolts of how to make a production run, that being incredibly well organized will help you gain and keep volunteer cast/crew, and the incredible amount of discipline it takes to make it through an entire production. I also learned that the "make a good cheap movie, take it to film festivals, sell movie" model of filmmaking was dying REALLY fast.

6. Let's get into the production: How long did it take? Ups / downs?

Pre-production went from March 08 - September 08 and included everything from writing, designing/building/buying props and costumes, schedules, shot lists, and storyboards (I draw storyboards for every single shot of the film.)

Principal photography began on October 2nd 2008 and went for three weeks, shooting on nights 6 days a week. Average crew size was roughly 12 people (from Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and Ohio), all working till one, three, sometimes five AM and then having to go to their day job and come back to film at five PM! We shot for a week in a downtown parking garage and it was really neat/eerie to be eating "lunch" at midnight outside in the middle of a dead quiet city.

We had three locations: a church office floor, an insurance company office floor, and the parking garage. We found locations through both the Pittsburgh film office and friends. Once we knew what we needed we just started asking around, even putting it out on my Facebook status. If you can't find it that way, try to get in touch with your local film office. They should have a ginormous database of location pictures. The trick is finding the ones that won't charge you thousands of dollars. We got turned down by about a dozen places.

We shot on a Panasonic HVX and rented a small lighting/dolly package from The Gaffhouse, a local equipment house. If you're interested in shooting your own film/series and don't have your own equipment or a great budget, never be afraid to ask a local equipment place for help. A lot of times they have equipment just sitting there not making money so they'll gladly rent at an incredibly reduced rate.

7. Postproduction: what tools are you using to create this look? This sound? The VFX?

Most of "the look" is created by our lighting design. But as far as post-production I'm editing on a Mac Pro using Final Cut Pro and After Effects for the VFX. I learned how to do FX while working on the original short just by watching an insane amount of online video tutorials like videocopilot.net. I wasn't copying any specific effect or tutorial (you can see a lot of their stuff being copied ALL OVER the internet now a days) just learning how the program worked.

As for sound, we have a local studio (Market St. Sound) handling the mix for us. While I'm able to handle a lot of different areas of filmmaking, sound is the one I have to hand off.


8. Who designed your poster?

I did the poster. Art and design is my other love/hobby.

9. What are your favorite pulps?

While it's not originally of the golden age of pulps, and often not considered pulp, I've got to go with Raiders of the Lost Ark. That film inspired Mercury Men a great deal and remains a constant source of conversation between the cast/crew.

10. What are your favorite comics and comic artists/writers?

Darwyn Cooke hands down. The New Frontier is easily among my top 5 comics. The style of art, story, and characters is everything I love. I'm a big fan of 60's design.


The Jeph Loeb/Tim Sale dynamic duo is a close second. They create the most cinematic comics.

11. Raygun or jetpack?

Jet pack, which I'm REALLY hoping we can pull off in a Mercury Men sequel.

[Check out a cool Mercury Men raygun here]

12. Underground mole machine or rocketship?

Rocketship. I'm claustrophobic. And a huge fan of space.

13. What's next for Mercury Men?

Beyond just getting the series finished we're working hard on some fun stuff for this season such as the digital props and trading cards we've been releasing on the blog (http://themercurymen.blogspot.com). We're going to be releasing something every few days. We've got some behind-the-scenes video coming soon and some projects that viewers can contribute to the story. We're also already working on the story for the next volume of the series.
















14. I see it's available on
blip.tv - is this the only venue available?

It's also available on iTunes.

15. What online marketing tools are you using? Facebook? Twitter? Ning? etc... what do you think of each one in terms of effectiveness for what you're trying to accomplish?
I really think the interaction and dialogue with viewers is the most important part of this for me, and I am absolutely genuine about that. I love both sharing what we're doing, how we do it, and also hearing what others are doing.

16. Do you have traditional distribution (DVD, TV, Cable, International) yet or are you shopping it around? What's been the response so far?

No distribution agreement just yet.

17. What's next for you?

I've got two other projects ready to go, but all energy is being aimed at Mercury Men now.

18. What are your longterm goals in this industry?

Feed and house my wife and future kids. Beyond that I like telling fun stories that also have a deeper meaning in there. I'd love for Mercury Men Pictures to one day be the Pixar of live action film.

19. What do you want to say to the audience out there?

Hi. My name is Chris.




Thursday, May 14, 2009

I Like Anne Hathaway...

But damnit, I think I LOVE Nora Ephron....

From the "Future of Filmmaking" Panel at W Union Square by Syracuse University.
(as reported by Variety)

Anne:

"She said cutting her fee to make "Rachel Getting Married" was the kind of move that should be made automatically by stars who believe in low-budget projects. "Why make a movie for $30 million when it should look like it was made for 10?" she said. "'Brokeback Mountain' cost $11 million and it was absolutely gorgeous. I think I made SAG day rate for that one."
Nora:

Ephron said she mistrusted studios' frequent cries of poverty, especially their claims that talent and writer/director costs have hit them hard.

"I look at the movie business as this giant Ponzi scheme set up to compensate a small number of people," she said. "Everything about it is puffed up, including the executives. You wouldn't believe the scale of wealth in Hollywood. They live like pashas. I know people live like that here, too, but we all live in apartments so you can't see it."


And just so we're clear, I don't like this guy Michael Lynton a bit:

"I'm a guy who sees nothing good having come from the Internet, period," said Sony Pictures boss Michael Lynton, sitting between Anne Hathaway and Nora Ephron. "It seems to have done damage to every part of the entertainment business by creating this notion that people can get whatever they want right now, for free."

This would be quite the statement if Sony Pictures TV hadn't financed ANGEL OF DEATH and put it up on Crackle.com. What he's really saying is that the internet hasn't allowed him to arse-rape consumers the way that Theatrical, DVD and Television has so he sees no value in it.

Even then he's talking out of his ass.

Let's face it - the internet is for the rest of us.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

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.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Opening Title Sequences:

All too often I see indie filmmakers miss opportunities to make their movies better, more cohesive, more entertaining stories. That is, their films are riddled with dull camera work, flat lighting, dull action, padded scenes, and of course simple white on black opening title sequences.

Ugh.

I've spoken briefly about titles before, but I want to remind everyone reading that if you want to be a "pulp" filmmaker then you must, absolutely MUST take every opportunity to add to your story without adding to your budget. You can do that very effectively with your opening title sequence.

For example:


(click here to watch the title sequence)

Opening title sequences can be designed using still or video images that can be manipulated in all sorts of ways (Photoshop, After Effects, etc) and can add another level of story (background, tone, design) to your movie.

This saves you a lot of time in having to "set up" your story and get it moving along.

For example, in my script WOLFSBANE I set up a whole 30 days from one event to another in the opening title sequence:

A couple is attacked by a werewolf (the opening scene of the movie)...

[Begin titles]

The wife survives but the police think she actually murdered her husband (Booking photos, fingerprints taken, court date set) because she sticks to her story that a "monster did it and she hasn't any bite marks on her as evidence (though she swears she was bitten). She is committed to a mental hospital for observation pending trial, given drugs, and wastes away in a padded cell...

[end titles]

Cut to: It is 30+ days later and a new Full Moon rises in the night sky over the hospital.

All done in a style similar to this:



Thing is, your titles don't have to be this elaborate, but you do have to take every opportunity to tell your story more effectively. This establishes that your movie is going to be funny, or brutal, or fast, or colorful, or whatever. Why oh why would you want to turn your back on that and do lazy white on black titles?

(Maybe I just answered my own question)

Pulp filmmaking isn't about being cheap, it's about being the most effective without wasting money or time (which always equals money in this business).

Just as your key art can add a layer of story to your project so do your opening titles. Use this opportunity to get the most bang for your buck.

Now go read: Art of the Title.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Catching My Breath...

It has been one hell of a couple of weeks, and I am looking forward to the holidays where I can collapse and get something resembling sleep.

For those of you who don't know already, my mother has been in the hospital for the past couple of days having 4 ft. of her intestines removed and a herniation repair. With two surgeons and an extra 2 hrs. on the table she came out a-okay and is finally out of the hospital ICU and in her own room.

I, of course have been stuck here performing my duties for my clients at AFM.

(Long intake then exhale of air)

Several of you have asked, and no there hasn't been anything surprising at AFM, except for maybe what passes as acceptable behavior on the part of producers, and what they consider to be a "commercial" project. A-mazing.

Producers: (title given with tongue firmly wedged in cheek)

- Deodorant is not an option.
- No, you don't look hip and cool in that t-shirt. Or that ice cream suit with lime shirt. Or that hat. Or that spandex that says"Camel Toes R Us."
- Honey, put your plastic boobs back in the bra. I ain't buying your movie.
- Get a haircut. After you first wash that greasy mop. And shave while you're at it.
- I don't care if they were on "One Tree Hill" (in the background) they are NOT a star.
- Relax. Just tell me what your movie is about -not its "themes, motifs or breath-taking locations." Your story is what hooks me. Nothing else.
- Yes, your key art is ugly.
- Everyone has a project. No one has a script, a budget, or a cast. No one has done their homework.
- No, I don't like your title (Somebody said their werewolf picture was called FOUR DAYS -- for the 4 days a month of a full moon. When I pointed out that there was only one true full moon per month and two 98% moons (one before and one after) he said nothing and walked away).
- Japan makes (and sells) a lot of movies that will never get any play here in the states. No judgments made with that statement just the facts.
- More and more people are shooting HD. It is not a selling point. I mean really - who cares? It's great for technically-minded folks, but not for sales people.
- No, I will not give you free advice on how to fix your poster after you've seen our portfolio, and know that we deliver.
- I said "no." You can leave now.

More later...with a post about how "pulp filmmaking is taking over the UK."

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Danny Boyle on Pulp Filmmaking...

From Anne Thompson's interview in Variety:

"The more money I take that is not restricted, which technically gives you freedom, equipment and more days, the more the spirit of the film dies, falls flat," he says.

After "The Beach," Boyle says he decided "not to do huge-budget films anymore." He returned to making tiny British TV movies and felt the excitement again: "This is what I should do."

It's not that the Brit helmer hates Hollywood studios. They've been very good to him, he says, especially 20th Century Fox and its specialty division Searchlight, which backed the low-budget pics "Sunshine," "Millions" and "28 Days Later," and is releasing "Slumdog" in partnership with Warner Bros.

And Boyle wishes he could make films like "The Dark Knight," he says, "but I realize I am not very good at it."

Boyle was tempted by, but turned down, an f/x-crammed David Benioff script. "James Cameron, David Fincher and Ridley Scott do battles with the studios," Boyle says. "You have to be difficult to do that. On those huge movies it's like Aztec sacrifices, where the cameraman gets sacked by the third leading actor."

But restrict and limit Boyle's options, and his spirit flies.

"That's where I come from," he says. "Where you make the best with what you've got. That's what I am. I've never done commercials or big videos where they throw money at you. I am a bit difficult, but I like harmony. I like a smaller group of people all pulling in the same direction toward the same thing. I get rid of them if they're not."

----------------------------------

Boyle's challenge -- one happily embraced -- was to make $15 million look like a whole lot more.

"I like that tension," he says. "I don't want to make a dirty indie film struggling with paltry resources. I want to make a film that looks like it cost $50 million or $60 million."

To do that, Boyle jumped into a 12-week shoot on crazy Mumbai locations that changed overnight, deploying a nimble cameraman with a hard drive in a backpack and a gyro with an attached camera lens in his hand.

"It's a different way of grabbing reality and it has an intensity to it," he says. "It lets the mind float off places."

Boyle, who had earlier used mini-DV on "28 Days Later," says the technique allowed his crew and second unit on "Slumdog" to act instinctively and grab shots wherever they could.

But amid all the roaming, Boyle followed a strict rule: Cover the script.

"These instincts you have when filming sometimes are often indulgent bullshit. You feel like a spoiled prince with a hundred people asking you what you want."

Boyle's touchstone: "A heightened realism," he says. "If it doesn't feel real to me, then I don't do it."

-----------------------------

Go see Boyle's latest pulp movie, SLUMDOG MILIONAIRE ( an English-Hindi hybrid shot mostly with handheld digital cameras on location in Mumbai for $15 million) at theaters near you.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Chicken or Egg It All Ends Up As Pulp

In our discussion below, filmmaker Andrew Bellware writes:

"If I could only make a movie as cool as its cover art, I'd be very happy! So maybe the idea of making the cover art first -- before making the movie -- is a really good one..."

As I have discussed before, it's the way that American International Pictures used to do it back in the fifties and sixties, but they also acquired many movies and applied the talents of their art department (Albert Kallis, who worked in his own studio) on the task of selling the picture.

What they followed was The ARKOFF Formula.

In addition, they devised a rule for their pulp filmmaking and marketing:

a) a younger child will watch anything an older child will watch;
b) an older child will not watch anything a younger child will watch;
c) a girl will watch anything a boy will watch
d) a boy will not watch anything a girl will watch; therefore-to catch your greatest audience you zero in on the 19-year old male.

Hmmm... so there you have it. No matter if you create the art first, then the movie or vice versa -- if you are making a low budget, genre picture and you want to achieve the maximum exposure possible, then you should target 19 year old males as your core audience. They will bring the rest of the audience to the picture.


Read Andrew's comments regarding the differences between the art for his movie in Japan and the North American version.


The Japanese version is almost anime-like" in appearance and plays to the central conceit of a female killing machine (is there any other kind?) The N. A. version plays to the "stars" who might be most recognizable to a western audience.



I would have composed something that combined the two: a piece of art that lets genre fans know who's in it, but which more importantly lets 19 yr. old males understand this is a kick-ass movie.

It has elements of ULTRAVIOLET and AEON FLUX and plays on your DVD player like a game disc in a Playstation. And hopefully, I would have made or acquired a movie to match the expectation I've set up with the art.







(Kind of what we did here with this title that you can
learn more about here. FYI - I wanted to make the key art blue to distinguish it more from a certain other movie. I was overruled)










So I have to ask: Andrew, how would your movie have changed if you had either of these two pieces of art as your "inspiration" before you made the movie (or even wrote the script)?

Monday, September 29, 2008

Hope Offers Hope: "There is no Indie Crisis"

Veteran Indie Producer Ted Hope (The Savages, American Splendor, 21 Grams, Lovely & Amazing, Happiness) delivered a stirring speech at the Film Independent's Filmmaker Forum that counters Mark Gill's controversial speech.

I am reproducing the speech below taken from Anne Thompson's Hollywood Blog for Variety. It's a great speech and indicative of my own philosophy of moviemaking. To wit - there are greater rewards to be had by creating, producing and owning your own material even if you don't have a multi-million dollar budget or huge audience. It's about being creative and entrepreneurial and responsible. Filmmaking today is more than just producing the movie.

I have bolded appropriate lines that should probably be tattooed on everyone's eyelids so we don't forget.

A THOUSAND PHOENIX RISING
How The New Truly Free Filmmaking Community Will Rise From Indie's Ashes

I can't talk about the "crisis" of the indie film industry. There is no crisis. The country is in crisis. The economy is in crisis. We, the filmmakers, aren't in crisis. The business is changing, but for us -- us who are called Indie Filmmakers -- that's good that the business is changing. Filmmaking is an incredible priviledge and we need to accept it as such -- and accept the full responsibility that comes with that priviledge.
The proclamations of Indie Film's demise are grossly exaggerated. How can there be a "Death Of Indie" when Indie -- real Indie, True Indie -- has yet to even live?

Yes, there's a profound paradigm shift, and that shift is the coming of true independence. The hope of this new independence is being threatened even before it has arrived. Are we going to fight for our independence and can we even shoulder the responsibility that independence requires? That is: will we band together and work for our communal needs? Are we ready to leave dreams of stardom and wealth behind us?

When someone says "Indie is dead," they are talking about the state of the 'Indie Film Business,' as opposed to what are actually the films themselves. They can say "The sky is falling" because for the last fifteen years, the existing power base in the film industry has focused on films fit for the existing business model, as opposed to ever truly concentrating on creating a business model for the films that filmmakers want to make.

This is where we are right now: on the verge of a TRULY FREE FILM CULTURE, one that is driven by both the creators and the audiences, pulled down by the audience and not pushed onto them by those that control the apparatus and the supply. We now have the power and the tool for something different, but will we fight to preserve the Internet, the tool that offers us our new freedom? Can we banish the dream of golden distribution deals, and move away from asking others to distribute and market it for us? Can we accept that being a filmmaker means taking responsibility for your films, the primary responsibility, all the way through the process? That is independence and that is freedom.

Indie, True Indie, is in its infancy. The popular term "Indie" is a distortion, growing out of our communal laziness and complacency -- our willingness to be marketed blandly and not specifically. Our culture is vast and diverse, and we need to celebrate these differences, not diminish them. It's time to put that term "Indie" to rest.
Independence is within our reach, but we have to do what we have never done before: we have to choose.

It's a lot like the [U.S.] Presidential election. And it's also a lot like the way psychotherapy works: we have to ask ourselves if the pain we are experiencing presently is enough to motivate us to overcome the fear inherent in change itself.
We have to change our behavior and make that choice. We have to choose the type of culture we want. We have to choose the type of films we want available to us. We have to choose whether the Internet is ours or the corporations. We have to choose whether we decide for ourselves whether a film is worthwhile or whether we let those same corporations decide. We have to choose who our audiences are and how we are to reach them. We have to choose how we can all best contribute to this new system.

And as we act on those choices, we have to get others to make a choice too. For the last fifteen years our community has made huge strides at demystifying the production process and providing access to the financing and distribution gatekeepers. Some call this "democratization," but it is not. This demystification of production was a great first step, but it is not the whole shebang. In some ways, understanding the great behemoth that is production is also a distraction. It has distracted us from making really good films. And as it has distracted us from gaining the knowledge and seizing the power that is available to us.

We have learned how to make films and how to bring them to market. We now have to demystify how to market and distribute films, and to do it in a way truly suited to the films we are making and desire to make. Don't get me wrong the last fifteen years have been great. The Indie Period -- as I suspect history will call it -- has brought us a far more diverse array of films than we had previously. It got better; we got more - but that is still not freedom. We are still in a damn similar place to the way it was back when cinema was invented 100 years ago. And it's time we moved to a new term, to the period of a Truly Free Film Culture.

If we want the freedom to tell the stories we want to tell, we all have to start to contribute to build the infrastructure that can support them. We need to step back from the glamour of making all these films, and instead help each other build the links, articulate the message, make the commitments, that will turn us truly into a 'Truly Free Film' community. We have to stop making so many films. The work before us is a major readjustment that will require many sacrifices. We must redesign the business structure for what the films actually are.

We have to recognize that a Truly Free Film Culture is quite different from studio films and even different from the prestige films that the specialized distributors make. But look at what we gain: we will stop self-censoring our work to fit a business model that was appropriated from Hollywood and their mass market films to begin with. We will reach out to the audiences that are hungry for something new, for something truthful, for something about the world they experience, for something that is as complex as the emotions they feel. We can let them guide us because for the first time we can have real access and contact with them.

Presently, we are divided and conquered by a system that preys upon our dreams of success, encouraging us to squander collective progress on false hopes on personal enrichment. We follow the herd and only lead reluctantly. If we want Truly Free Films we have to stop dreaming of wealth, and take the job of building the community and support system. For the last decade and a half, we have been myopically focused on production. Using Sundance submissions as a barometer, our production ability has increased eight and half times over -- 850% -- from 400 to 3600 films in fifteen years.

C'mon! What are we doing? Wasting a tremendous amount of energy, talent, and brainpower - that much is clear. If the average budget of Sundance submissions is $500K, that means the aggregate production costs are $1.8 billion dollars a year. That's a hell of a lot of money to lose annually. And you can bet the Indie World isn't going to get a government bail out like Wall Street and the banking industry have. We need to recognize the responsibility of telling unique stories in unique ways. We are frequently innovators and groundbreakers, but that brings additional responsibilities.

Working at the intersection of art and commerce, requires consideration for those that come after us. It is our responsibility to do all within our power to deliver a positive financial return. If we lose money, it will be a lot harder for those that follow us. With a debt of $1.8 billion per annum you can bet it will be a lot harder for a lot of people. And it should be - but it didn't need to be. We don't get better films or build audiences by picking up cameras. Despite this huge boom in production, the number of truly talented uniquely voiced auteurs produced annually remains unchanged. What's happened instead is the infrastructure has rusted, the industry has failed to innovate, and we are standing on a precipice begging the giant to banish us into oblivion.

There is a silver lining to this dark cloud of over production that they like to call The Glut. As a young man I never found peace until I moved to New York City; the calm I found in New York, is explained by a line of Woody Allen's: "In New York, you always know what you are missing." What's great about a surplus of options - and we have that now, and not just from movies, but from the web, from books, from shows - what's great is that you have to make a choice. You have to commit. And you have to commit in advance. The business model of the current entertainment industry is predicated on consumers not making choices but acting on impulses.

Choice comes from research, from knowledge, and from tastes. Speak to someone from Netflix, and they will tell you that the longer someone is a member, the more their tastes move to auteurs, to quality film. Once we all wake up and realize that with films, as frankly with everything, we have to be thoughtful. We have to make it a choice - a choice for, and not an impulse. We are now in a cultural war and not just the red state/blue state, participate vs. obey kind, not just the kind of cultural war that politicians seem to want to break this country down to. We are in a culture war in terms of what we get to see, enjoy and make. The lovers of cinema have been losing this war because the makers have invested in a dream of "Prince Charming," content to have him sweep down, pick us up and sing that rags to riches refrain even if it comes but once a year to one lucky filmmaker out of 3,600.

So what is this TRULY FREE FILM CULTURE I am proposing? It is one that utilizes first and foremost the remarkable tool that is the Internet. It is the Internet that transforms the culture business from a business that is based around limited supply and the rule of gatekeepers to a business that around the fulfillment of all audience desire, and not just the desire of mass audiences, but also of the niches. We have never had this sort of opportunity before and the great tragedy is that just as we are learning what it means, forces are vying to take it away from us.

The principal that all information, all creators, all audiences should be treated equally within the structure that is the Internet is popularly referred to as Net Neutrality. The Telecos, the cable companies, and their great ally, the Hollywood motion picture studios and the MPAA are now trying to end that equality. And with it you will lose the opportunity to be TRULY FREE FILMMAKERS. But they are not going to succeed because we are going to band together and organize, we are going to save the Internet, and keep equal access for all.

A TRULY FREE FILM CULTURE will respect the audience's needs and desires as much as it currently respects the filmmakers.

A TRULY FREE FILM CULTURE recognizes film as a dialogue and recognizes that a dialogue requires a community. Participants in a TRULY FREE FILM CULTURE work to participate in that community, work to get others to participate in that community. We work to get others to make a choice, to make a choice about what they want to do, what they want to see. We all become curators. We all promote the films we love. We reach out and mobilize others to vote with their feet, vote with their eyes, and vote with their dollars, to not act on impulses, but on knowledge and experience.

A TRULY FREE FILMMAKER -- be they producer or director -- recognizes their responsibility is not just to find a good script, not just to find a good cast, a good package. A TRULY FREE FILMMAKER recognizes that they must do more than find the funding, and even more than justifying that funding. The TRULY FREE FILMMAKER now recognizes their responsibility to also find the audience, grow the audience, expand the audience, and then also to move the audience, not just emotionally, but also literally: to move them onwards further to other things. Whether it is by direct contact, email blasts, or blogging, whatever it is, express what you want our culture to be.

The TRULY FREE FILMMAKER also recognizes that knowledge is power, and not ownership. The TRULY FREE FILMMAKER recognizes that others, as many others as possible, sharing in that knowledge will make everything better: the films, the apparatus, the business, and the just plain pleasure of participating. We are walking into new territory and we best map it out together.

The TRULY FREE FILMMAKER is no longer bound to just the 5 or 6 reel length. The TRULY FREE FILMMAKER is no longer bound to projection as the primary audience platform and is not stuck on the one film one theater one week type of release.

The TRULY FREE FILMMAKER recognizes that just because there is no user term, no audience term, no consumer term for the cohesive cross-platform immersive experience, does not mean that we don't want that. A child understands that when you say "Pokemon" you mean not just the films, or TV shows, but also the cards, the games, the figures, the books. And a child understands that when you say "Brand Management" or "Franchise" you are just looking for ways to separate you from your wallet. We need to define that term to help the audience recognize what it is they want, what it is that we now can create, own, and distribute independently.

It is this thing that we once called the "Independent Community" that is the sector that truly innovates. The lower cost of our creations allows for greater risks. It is what we used to call "indies" that have innovated on a technical level, on a content level, on a story telling approach, and it is this - the TRULY FREE FILM CULTURE - that will innovate still further in the future of distribution.

With the passion that produces 3600 films a year, with just a portion of those resources, we can build a new infrastructure that opens up new audiences, new models, new revenue streams that can build a true alternative to the mainstream culture that has been force fed us for years. We are on the verge of truly opening up what can be told, how it is told, to whom it is told, and where it is told.

We can seize it, but it requires that we embrace the full responsibility of what independence means. Independence requires knowing your film inside and out. Knowing not just what you are choosing to do, but what you have chosen not to do. Independence comes with knowing that you have fully considered all your options. It is knowing your audience - knowing how to reach them - and not abstractly, but concretely.

Let's make the next ten years about seizing our independence, killing "indie" film, and bringing forth a Truly Free Film Culture.

Thank you.

----- Ted Hope 9/27/08