I find it ironic that this whole thing started with an interview with Mark Duplass, a filmmaker who successfully transitioned to Hollywood because he once, as an amateur, said Just-Do-It.
A Sobering Bit of Reality
- Thread starter directorik
- Start date
Let me get this straight. So the author of the article was essentially saying the problem with the indie film industry is that too many films are being made that aren't intended for theatrical distribution? To me, it sounds like he was trying to say the only real way a movie (any movie) makes a good profit is through theatrical distribution, and all other routes - YouTube, direct to DVD, iTunes, film festivals, etc. - are ultimately doomed towards economic dead ends.
If this is what he was trying to say, it would seem that the real problem is that the independent film industry (which isn't profiting too much) is in the hands of individuals, while the Hollywood industry (which IS thriving and profiting) is still a very regulated environment. The indie film scene is populated by people who don't need permission or validation of any sort to make a film (especially if it's under $15,000), whereas the films being churned out of studios must be good qualify or else they wouldn't be supported by those studios in the first place (hence why people are generally more trusting towards studio films).
You know, I kind of knew about this problem, but I'm glad I read this article because I never really took the time to think about it. If this is the real problem, it seems as if there isn't a satisfying solution - the indie film genre will forever be a genre where art is created for self-fulfillment, while studio films will forever make up an industry created for profit. If this is the case, the solution is technically already here: all people can do is use those indie films and shorts as a way to snag a spot among Hollywood. The term Hollywood also encapsulates all the smaller production companies who give budgets between $500,000-$3,000,000 to directors (aka, Hollywood doesn't just mean "after earth" and "transformers"). If this is really the truth, then it seems like there needs to be three categories of films - studio (big budget with heavy studio involvement), independent (small budget with minimal studio involvement), and individual (minuscule budgets with no studio involvement whatsoever).
It really makes you think. The film industry is profitable when the gatekeepers (aka studios with money) are present, but when you remove that limitation and put it in the hands of the filmmakers themselves, things fail. I guess the "big bully" elitist Hollywood IS the only filter for quality and marketability.
After reading this article, it almost seems like there isn't much room for directors and screenwriters anymore: that if you truly want to be competitive, you have to hybridize. Directors will always face the challenge of being in competition for a small pool of quality scripts - and steering clear of the bad ones -, all while proving themselves worthy of the job directing said script. Screenwriters will always be dependent on finding someone qualified to read and hopefully produce their work - and if that person isn't qualified, the screenwriter is essentially selling their creations short. For director/writer hybrids however (especially director/writer/producer hybrids), there are fewer hurdles to overcome.
Sorry for the word vomit rant. I just thought this article was really, really interesting.
If this is what he was trying to say, it would seem that the real problem is that the independent film industry (which isn't profiting too much) is in the hands of individuals, while the Hollywood industry (which IS thriving and profiting) is still a very regulated environment. The indie film scene is populated by people who don't need permission or validation of any sort to make a film (especially if it's under $15,000), whereas the films being churned out of studios must be good qualify or else they wouldn't be supported by those studios in the first place (hence why people are generally more trusting towards studio films).
You know, I kind of knew about this problem, but I'm glad I read this article because I never really took the time to think about it. If this is the real problem, it seems as if there isn't a satisfying solution - the indie film genre will forever be a genre where art is created for self-fulfillment, while studio films will forever make up an industry created for profit. If this is the case, the solution is technically already here: all people can do is use those indie films and shorts as a way to snag a spot among Hollywood. The term Hollywood also encapsulates all the smaller production companies who give budgets between $500,000-$3,000,000 to directors (aka, Hollywood doesn't just mean "after earth" and "transformers"). If this is really the truth, then it seems like there needs to be three categories of films - studio (big budget with heavy studio involvement), independent (small budget with minimal studio involvement), and individual (minuscule budgets with no studio involvement whatsoever).
It really makes you think. The film industry is profitable when the gatekeepers (aka studios with money) are present, but when you remove that limitation and put it in the hands of the filmmakers themselves, things fail. I guess the "big bully" elitist Hollywood IS the only filter for quality and marketability.
After reading this article, it almost seems like there isn't much room for directors and screenwriters anymore: that if you truly want to be competitive, you have to hybridize. Directors will always face the challenge of being in competition for a small pool of quality scripts - and steering clear of the bad ones -, all while proving themselves worthy of the job directing said script. Screenwriters will always be dependent on finding someone qualified to read and hopefully produce their work - and if that person isn't qualified, the screenwriter is essentially selling their creations short. For director/writer hybrids however (especially director/writer/producer hybrids), there are fewer hurdles to overcome.
Sorry for the word vomit rant. I just thought this article was really, really interesting.
That's the industry we're in. Theatrical is often the loss leader which is where the value is created (not sure if created is the best word for it) for the other distribution windows.
The problem is the 7 figure market has also virtually collapsed with the big decline in the DVD market. In the last few years, the studios and other investors have had a hard time breaking even (let alone making a profit) in this budget range.
This is polarizing the market. Either blockbuster budget or super low budget where there is very little room to pay people or short cuts need to be made.
There will always be a demand for great (or even very good) storytellers.
It all comes down to building our own fan base to create the demand for our stories. If there is a demand, our supply will move.
I have too much going on with my person life right now to move forward with my plans to create a demand by selling short stories to science fiction magazines. But, one day things must get better. When they do, I will get at least one short story sold and keep tabs of fans before going back to short films and hopefully pilot movies for a cable TV science fiction series.
The cost of writing a short story is just my time and energy and I don't have to depend on others like making a film. I will have to keep track of sales of magazines with the short story and fan mail on it to use as data later on, since big numbers will draw investors. I strongly doubt I'll have sales even in the range of the lowest selling major comic book title. But, maybe there might be enough to fund a good short film.
Marvel Comics went to Wall Street with the sales statistics of their top selling comic books to get the funding for their slate of movies we have seen over the past few years.
So, the business model I am using is the right path. I'm not being delusional to think that either the short stories or films will make even hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'd just like to pay back any investors and spend the rest on the cast and crew.
Don't depend on Hollywood or the studios. We should aim to make our own way.
Here is the Marvel Plan to self-fund movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios
Production
In 2004, David Maisel was hired as chief operating officer of Marvel Studio as he had a plan for the Studios to self-finance movies.[35] Marvel entered into a non-recourse financing structure with Merrill Lynch that is collateralize by certain movie rights to a total of 10 characters from Marvel's vast vault. Marvel gets $525 million to make a maximum of 10 movies based on the company's properties over eight years, according to the parameters of the original deal with Paramount Pictures in September 2004. Those characters were: Ant-Man, The Avengers, Black Panther, Captain America, Cloak & Dagger, Doctor Strange, Hawkeye, Nick Fury, Power Pack and Shang-Chi.[36][37] Ambac insured the movies would succeed or they would pay the interest payment on the debt and get the movie rights collateral.[25]
I have too much going on with my person life right now to move forward with my plans to create a demand by selling short stories to science fiction magazines. But, one day things must get better. When they do, I will get at least one short story sold and keep tabs of fans before going back to short films and hopefully pilot movies for a cable TV science fiction series.
The cost of writing a short story is just my time and energy and I don't have to depend on others like making a film. I will have to keep track of sales of magazines with the short story and fan mail on it to use as data later on, since big numbers will draw investors. I strongly doubt I'll have sales even in the range of the lowest selling major comic book title. But, maybe there might be enough to fund a good short film.
Marvel Comics went to Wall Street with the sales statistics of their top selling comic books to get the funding for their slate of movies we have seen over the past few years.
So, the business model I am using is the right path. I'm not being delusional to think that either the short stories or films will make even hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'd just like to pay back any investors and spend the rest on the cast and crew.
Don't depend on Hollywood or the studios. We should aim to make our own way.
Here is the Marvel Plan to self-fund movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios
Production
In 2004, David Maisel was hired as chief operating officer of Marvel Studio as he had a plan for the Studios to self-finance movies.[35] Marvel entered into a non-recourse financing structure with Merrill Lynch that is collateralize by certain movie rights to a total of 10 characters from Marvel's vast vault. Marvel gets $525 million to make a maximum of 10 movies based on the company's properties over eight years, according to the parameters of the original deal with Paramount Pictures in September 2004. Those characters were: Ant-Man, The Avengers, Black Panther, Captain America, Cloak & Dagger, Doctor Strange, Hawkeye, Nick Fury, Power Pack and Shang-Chi.[36][37] Ambac insured the movies would succeed or they would pay the interest payment on the debt and get the movie rights collateral.[25]
Last edited:
Characters must have a proven track record of selling power to convince investors they will get their money back, if the movie version fails.
Here is more on this business model.
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/04/20/summit-gets-merrill-lynch-financing/
Merrill made its way into movie financing with such deals as Melrose I, which financed a slate of movies at Paramount Pictures. It went on to raise $525 million for Marvel Entertainment in an innovative deal that used Marvel’s comic-book characters as equity to back debt sales. It also did some smaller deals, including two $50 million deals for Regent Entertainment, as well as producer deals such as Cold Spring Pictures, which included the recent hit “Disturbia.”
Here is more on this business model.
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/04/20/summit-gets-merrill-lynch-financing/
Merrill made its way into movie financing with such deals as Melrose I, which financed a slate of movies at Paramount Pictures. It went on to raise $525 million for Marvel Entertainment in an innovative deal that used Marvel’s comic-book characters as equity to back debt sales. It also did some smaller deals, including two $50 million deals for Regent Entertainment, as well as producer deals such as Cold Spring Pictures, which included the recent hit “Disturbia.”