More like thousands of bad ones.
A Sobering Bit of Reality
- Thread starter directorik
- Start date
Best I can tell there's a profitable rate of return no man's land between whatever you'd spend on a normal family vacation to well over a million or five.
GOOD ← <$2,000, >$2,000 ---------------------- BAD ---------------------- <$1-5Million, >$1-5Million → GOOD, maybe.
There're plenty of multi-million dollar films that never make a profitable ROI.
MOST LIKELY that money spent is just G O N E.
You coulda bought a car
- but instead you have a film.
You coulda bought a house
- but instead you have a film.
You coulda paid for your kid's college education
- but instead you have a film.
You coulda bought a car, a house, and a college degree for all your kids and nieces and nephews - but instead you have a film.
Hope you enjoy your film!
GOOD ← <$2,000, >$2,000 ---------------------- BAD ---------------------- <$1-5Million, >$1-5Million → GOOD, maybe.
There're plenty of multi-million dollar films that never make a profitable ROI.
MOST LIKELY that money spent is just G O N E.
You coulda bought a car
You coulda bought a house
You coulda paid for your kid's college education
You coulda bought a car, a house, and a college degree for all your kids and nieces and nephews - but instead you have a film.
Hope you enjoy your film!
Tens of thousands!
I suspect the original author is talking more about professional productions, rather than the $10k budget independent films. Where people are earning less and less each year, but still earning a (somewhat diminishing) living. I suspect he's not even talking about productions as low as $250k.
You're somewhat spot on. Sustainability is key, there is a big however.
There are a lot of people who are trying to break into the industry. It's really as simple as that. Movies that are likely to be paying decent wages look for the best, and most experienced crew they can afford. That often locks out the newcommers, (so many film school noobie factories pumping them out by the tens of thousands each year) what are their choices?
I don't see a problem with unsustainable models used for the correct reasons (like trying to make a calling card etc), though, I do agree with you, sustainability is key when you're looking at the long term. People need to be able to put food on the table, afford accommodation and so on.
The author makes a very good point about supply and demand and it works for crew (and cast) too. There are lots and lots and lots of crew out there who are willing to work on a film, even for a highly reduced rate. They have to earn. Sometimes it's a choice between sitting at home not earning or earning a reduced fee.
In a perfect world, everyone would earn as much as they want.
Unfortunately if you're in an industry that isn't sustainable, then it may be a sign of times changing. It might be time to look for other work or deciding whether breaking into filming is really the best option. That being said, I don't foresee the filming industry dying. Be the best of your game and you'll always be in demand. The question then becomes, at what pay scale?
You're somewhat spot on. Sustainability is key, there is a big however.
There are a lot of people who are trying to break into the industry. It's really as simple as that. Movies that are likely to be paying decent wages look for the best, and most experienced crew they can afford. That often locks out the newcommers, (so many film school noobie factories pumping them out by the tens of thousands each year) what are their choices?
I don't see a problem with unsustainable models used for the correct reasons (like trying to make a calling card etc), though, I do agree with you, sustainability is key when you're looking at the long term. People need to be able to put food on the table, afford accommodation and so on.
The author makes a very good point about supply and demand and it works for crew (and cast) too. There are lots and lots and lots of crew out there who are willing to work on a film, even for a highly reduced rate. They have to earn. Sometimes it's a choice between sitting at home not earning or earning a reduced fee.
In a perfect world, everyone would earn as much as they want.
Unfortunately if you're in an industry that isn't sustainable, then it may be a sign of times changing. It might be time to look for other work or deciding whether breaking into filming is really the best option. That being said, I don't foresee the filming industry dying. Be the best of your game and you'll always be in demand. The question then becomes, at what pay scale?
Seriously, if I'm ever a billionaire, I'm going to hire IDOM to be my Cyrano de Burgerac. Time and time again, IDOM says exactly what I'm thinking/feeling, but says it in a way that is so much more eloquent than I could possibly muster. Plus, I sometimes lose my shit, while IDOM keeps cool.
Look, if it were up to the author of this article, my first feature film shouldn't have been made. But I'm telling you that I needed to make it, and thank the movie Gods that modern technology made it feasible for me to do so. I doubt the author would want me to make the second feature that I'm currently planning.
I'm not making these movies for the general health of "the industry". I'm making them because I want to make them, and my primary goal is that the production of the film benefits everyone involved in making it.
I recognize that there are a million other people like me out there, so I simply have to make a product better than them. Telling me not to do so is like telling that kid down the street to stop playing basketball 20 hours a week, because there's no way he'll make it to the NBA. He doesn't care about Negative-Nancy statistics, he just has a dream and a desire to try and make it to the NBA.
It might sound like I take offense to this article, but I don't. I have no illusion that this article is anything other than a sincere attempt to help make things better for all of us. But who gets to decide who all of us is? The market is over-saturated, this much is true. But it's over-saturated because there are THAT many people who think they can make it, and no one should tell them that they can't.
You coulda bought a house- but instead you have a film.
At this point in life, I would actually rather have a house, even if it is that small. Well... OK, maybe not that small.
And a job, too. A full-time job. That would be nice.
As far as I can see, the first two statements encapsulate the problem and all 3 statements together encapsulate why the author's solution of rebalancing the supply/demand ratio by cutting supply is not only infeasible but is completely the opposite of what will actually happen, at least in the short/medium term.
1. While Cracker might be thanking the movie gods for the technology which made his film feasible to make, at some point, if he ever wants to make movies for a living, it's likely he will be cursing those same gods for exactly the same reason!
2. Of those million other people, I wonder how many also realise they have to make a better product? And relating this back to #1; technology didn't just reach the point of filmmaking feasibility for Cracker and then stopped, it continues. Ultimately we are heading towards technology which potentially provides near professional quality for the price of a couple of days of average income. At that point, those "million other people" becomes those hundred million other people and unfortunately, that doesn't make Cracker's task a hundred times more difficult than it is now, it makes it almost infinitely more difficult! I know that doesn't sound logical but: With a 100 times more filmmakers you've got a 100 times more crappy indie films, a 100 times more decent indie films and a 100 times more good and very good indie films but you don't have 100 times more audience each paying what they do now, in all likelihood you have maybe a slightly larger audience but each of them paying considerably less than they do now, due to the law of supply and demand. A decent indie now might make a few hundred or even a few thousand but probably not enough to cover it's costs, a good indie might stand a fair chance of breaking even and a very good indie might even make a decent little profit. But, increase the supply of each of these categories a hundred fold (without increasing the demand) and their financial value or worth plummets commensurately. A decent indie might get more likes on youtube than a crappy indie but financially it would be just as worthless. The good and very good indies would most likely be drowned in the ocean of crappy and decent films (and therefore be just as worthless) but even those who find a way to poke their heads above the waves would still not earn enough to financially support the filmmakers. Will Cracker still be thanking the movie gods then?
While the author's suggestion is clearly unworkable in a free market economy, I think it's incredibly important to be discussing these issues and coming up with suggestions, if we are to avoid the bleak picture I've painted above and still have an industry to work in/aim for in 10 (or whatever) years time. From what I've seen over the last 15 years or so, burying one's head in the sand and/or assuming it will all work itself out to the benefit of filmmakers, increasingly appears to be the most futile/dangerous long term approach!
G
I wish making a better film was the answer to getting
people to pay to watch it. But I see too many examples
that disprove that. I see great films in festivals - and from
friends (and even me?) that cannot find an audience.
people to pay to watch it. But I see too many examples
that disprove that. I see great films in festivals - and from
friends (and even me?) that cannot find an audience.
But this is the arts - everyone is a starving artist, and film has always been a high-risk endeavor. So what else is new?
Good lord, whatever you do... don't read the comments. There's a whole new breed of special in there, for sure.
Too late. But it's ok, I like the circus.
And this is the problem exactly. If you want to make Netflix for indie films, you need to have Netflix capital to do it. Infrastructure, marketing, and, eventually, some kind of a business plan that will actually make you a profit.
And when you consider than even a pretty successful platform like Netflix loses a lot of it's "good" content because it cannot afford to pay much for it and remain successful, it should give pause to anyone trying to recreate that model, indie film related or not.
Dammit, don't go giving away my model for success - I'm counting on your billions to finance my next film!!!! I don't want to find myself just one of thousands of indie Cyrano's posting eloquent forum responses in hopes of breaking into the ghost-writing industry...
The other side of this is that the platform making a profit and the filmmakers making the profit are two different things. It's clear that being in the platform/distribution business is the way to make money with films - but it's not a path towards making things better for indie filmmakers because their individual slice of the aggregate platform profits isn't likely to ever be significant.
The problem is most attempts to 'fix' things are, like Beanie Barnes' suggestions, merely tilting at windmills. Make no mistake, it will all work itself out to the benefit of *some* filmmakers - which ultimately is the way it's always worked - but it's not likely to look anything like it did before, so any solution that involves trying to make things more like the good old days is probably doomed to failure.
That's my whole point - he's picking some arbitrary cutoff for what defines the 'indie' industry, which ignores the bigger picture. Even if the people & companies making those 'professional productions' could all somehow agree to reduce their output they'd be dwarfed by the larger and growing number of even lower-budget projects that are flooding the market.
I'd agree - but the problem is that sustainable or not all the films largely go into the same pool of competition, which makes it more difficult for any of them to be sustainable.
Well sure, everyone who buys a lottery ticket hopes to win big, not just win enough money to buy another ticket. The problem is the odds are getting worse in this particular lottery because the tickets are getting cheaper. Even if you're lucky enough to pick the right numbers you're splitting the jackpot with too many other people who picked them too.
That's the problem - the current 'indie' film model is the lottery model, where everyone's gambling on hitting it big. It's a model that was forged in the early 90's with the breakout success of filmmakers like Tarantino, Smith, Rodriguez, Soderbergh, Linklater. They spawned a generation of filmmakers hoping to emulate their path to success - scrape together enough to make one breakout festival hit, get picked up by a major (or their 'indie' subsidiary) for distribution, then ride off into the mainstream filmmaking sunset with a multi-picture deal.
But that's a model based on the market as it was nearly 25 years ago. What's the new model? When will we get the new Tarantino, Rodriguez, etc that the next generation will be emulating?
I'd say they're already here. An example would be Wong Fu (http://wongfuproductions.com/). Three college friends who had a viral hit about ten years ago, before youtube even existed. They built on that, starting a small video production business while continuing to make short films and music videos and cultivating an audience. Now they've got a youtube channel with hundreds of videos, 2 million subscribers and 300 million views. They have merchandise spinoffs. They do college tours. They're filmmakers, actors, and business men. They do this full time.
And nobody knows who they are. I mean, obviously, enough people know who they are. But they aren't stars, they aren't famous - not like hollywood stars at least. Most people probably haven't heard of them. They've made all this work with a very small slice of the overall audience, and they've done it essentially outside of the traditional film & television industry. They aren't really even part of the independent film industry that Barnes is writing about in the original article.
After ten years they're just getting ready to do their first real feature film, and they've raised $170,000 on indiegogo for it so far. I'm sure the film will be profitable - but you'll probably never hear about it, or see it at your local theater, maybe not even on VOD. Their fans will buy it directly from them (over 1000 already have through the indiegogo campaign). Where do you think they'll be in another 10 years?
That's the new model. Those are the new indie filmmakers that the next generation of filmmakers will be looking to emulate. The all-in, breakout feature film, hit it big indie model is dead - now it's a long-haul, brand building, audience-cultivating, business-building model.
The question isn't what are you going to do to make your first feature film stand out from the crowd. It's what are you going to do for the next decade or two to create an audience for your first feature? Are you willing to put in the time and effort to build to that? Can you hold off on your dream of making a feature until you've made it impossible to fail? Do you have what it takes - not just to be better than everyone else, but to be inevitable?
Obviously it's not the model everyone's hoping for - it's like telling someone playing the lottery that maybe what they should do instead is get a job and start saving money. It's a lot more work. It's delayed gratification. It requires persistence, and determination...
Calvin Coolidge said:
That's the rallying cry of the new generation of indies. That's the new model.
Press On!
Last edited:
One could make the argument that you and your friends idea of "great" is not in alignment with audience's idea of "great" or, that a great film is not necessarily the same thing as a great product. If we assume these arguments are NOT true, even great indie films are going to find it increasingly difficult not to get drowned in the swelling ocean. And by swelling ocean I don't just mean the ballooning number of films being made but the amount of marketing/publicity which accompanies them and the expanding number of festivals and platforms which service them.
G
+10
Yup.
It's a grind.
Every time someone cites ancient indie filmmaking history, like RR with 'El Mariachi' or even something from five years ago, I just cringe.
So much has changed in the business economic environment.
Distributors want marketers not artists.
They want you to bring your >500k member strong following of your low budget film - NOT - a hard drive with 90 - 110min of your really cool low budget film.
That's a good point. Okay, so what's the solution? The author of the article talks about finding ways for less films to find a greater audience, but doesn't actually offer any specific ways of doing so. Sincerely, if anyone has the answer, I think we'd all like to hear it.
Though I don't really appreciate APE's snarky tone, he's right -- there are too many people like me to make it even slightly possible to talk about reducing the number of films being made. And this goes back to what IDOM said in the first place. APE essentially reiterated IDOM's point, but without the lyrically smooth verbiage of Cyrano de Bergerac.
APE, I agree with most of what you said here, but not all of it. The part I can't agree with is that you think I'll someday curse the movie Gods. No, I absolutely will not. And that is because when I make a film, I am taking a calculated risk. I don't expect it to pay off. I want it to pay off, and I make plans that I believe will make it more likely to pay off, but I know that I'm entering into a risky venture.
And besides, I'm just having too much fun to curse anybody!
But even that's thinking the old way. Who cares what a distributor wants if you're the one doing all the marketing? The actual distribution part isn't the challenge any more, the marketing is. The only real role I see for traditional distributors in the future is for widespread theatrical release, or foreign markets where you need someone who can reach an audience you can't due to language/cultural barriers. The point isn't to build an audience big enough to attract a distributor - it's to build one big enough that you don't need a distributor.
By the way, I think the lottery model for breakout success is still viable. Don't believe me? Ask Lena Dunham. She's only the most recent example that it does in fact still happen.
That's not to say that there aren't other methods for success, as IDOM illustrated by pointing out Wong Fu. You could also point to other examples like Epic Meal Time. Or maybe we should look to SFX-driven short films.
I'm just saying that there isn't one single way to find success. A filmmaker should definitely be educated on what risks they're taking, and the positives/negatives of their chosen path.
That's not to say that there aren't other methods for success, as IDOM illustrated by pointing out Wong Fu. You could also point to other examples like Epic Meal Time. Or maybe we should look to SFX-driven short films.
I'm just saying that there isn't one single way to find success. A filmmaker should definitely be educated on what risks they're taking, and the positives/negatives of their chosen path.
No. It's all about money and what would major studios have to gain? If an independent entity gets successful enough, they will just offer to buy them outright.