Does anyone think festivals are a racket?

[Nate North]

After producing my first independent feature film, I heard a lot, and recieved a lot of mail about film festivals. At first I thought my work had been noticed and someone was offering me a free plane ticket out of respoect for my 8 months of hard work and 40k spent on the film.

But then as I read on, it turned out that I was supposed to pay them, just to screen my film, which might or might not be included, Then I would pay all my own expenses and stay at an overpriced hotel the festival promoters have a kickback deal with. If I was one of the lucky ones, the festival promoters would then show my movie to large crowds of paying customers, make several thousand dollars just off the one showing, then they won't even return your screening deposit.

I came to find all film festivals are like this, with the exception of ones you have to be invited to. I'm also very skeptical about all the Hollywood talent agents that are supposed to be in the audience. How much bigger is American Idol than any one film competition, and yet not even one real celebrity has emerged in however many terrible years that it has been on.

Maybe I'm just ranting here, does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on whether festivals are exploiting indie filmmakers?

 

[sonnyboo]

At this point I don't see the value in making another film unless I can come up with around 100k just for the camera rig.

Uh, it's substantially cheaper to RENT the $100,000 camera than to buy it.... There isn't a single movie made in the studio system that budgets to BUY the cameras as opposed to RENT.

 

[Nate North]

Reply

At this point I don't see the value in making another film unless I can come up with around 100k just for the camera rig.

I agree with using quality gear but not making another film because you can't use a 100k rig seems a bit silly. Why not hire a 100k rig? Or buy a red rig for 50k? Or a 30k dslr rig? These can produce amazing quality in the right hands.

Owen

Already did this, produced an entire feature film with a DSLR. My choice was to shoot a timelapse film that allowed me to switch lenses and get 4:4:4 color. It really worked, and I would recommend it. I just want to do a real film now, and I wouldn't want to film a feature with actors with a DSLR. I think if nothing else it would really lower morale on the set.

About renting - I have yet to find a filming situation where this is a good idea. Rental places will charge so much to rent a high end camera, that you can almost always buy the camera outright for 10-15 days rental.

If you are our shooting for 6 months, you could buy 8 cinealtas for the price of renting one for that period. If any of you knows of some magic camera store that rents Reds or Cinealtas for 10k a month, I'm all ears.

Actually that might not be a bad business idea. If someone offered reasonable high end camera rental, it would be a national first, and they'd beat a path to your door.

About the RED. I'm not sure about the red. It really doesn't look so much like movie camera footage. I saw Peter Jackson make a film with one, and it still didn't look movie quality. Even the Cinealtas (pre-f23) have mostly produced bad dull looking films, with the very notable exception of Star Wars episode 1-3. Seems like the best anyone else gets out of them is those grainy grey euro crime thrillers, 100% of which star Shawn Bean for some reason.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I just want to do a real film now, and I wouldn't want to film a feature with actors with a DSLR. I think if nothing else it would really lower morale on the set.

Nope. Actors are smart people. They understand economics. Show them what DSLR footage looks like, and they'll jump on board. They just wanna make movies.

If using DSLR vs. not using DSLR is the difference between making a movie now, and hopefully making a movie at some time in future, the decision is a no-brainer, in my opinion. If you've got the funds, use 'em. If you don't got the funds, DSLR is your friend.

 

[Nate North]

Rent Rant

Uh, it's substantially cheaper to RENT the $100,000 camera than to buy it.... There isn't a single movie made in the studio system that budgets to BUY the cameras as opposed to RENT.

You seem more experienced than me, but I've just never seen that. When I go to rent a High end camera I get this.

Call store 1, no high end cameras

Call store 2, 1 SD cam already that's out for 3 weeks but rentable for 650 a day to produce unusable footage

Call store 3, they say "hey there's a place 150 miles from you that has 1 RED camera and nothing else"

Call referred store, 1 dented RED camera available the week after I finish shooting for 8% of the retail price per day. (extra day if returned after 5)

Ask referred store to refer me to a larger store that would rent even higher end stuff, they send me to Burbank. Guy says, yeah we got em. Just fly down to LA today and we'll meet you at the airport with a limo. (true story, really surprised me) When I told the guy I only made 45k last year and needed reasonable pricing, he lost interest in speaking with me immediately.

As far as the studios renting cameras instead of buying, My belief is that they rent the cameras to themselves as part of their crazy accounting process. I read a fascinating article recently that showed how Hollywood accountants routinely make 98% of a films profits dissapear in production. The article included a case study of the most recent Harry potter film. The film cost a bit over 100 million, made 900 million gross and returned a profit of something like 20 million to the developers. The article spelled out how studios auto adjust every project to make almost nothing, with all the profits being paid off in huge contracts to "other service companies" that are actually owned by the studio.

So to simplify, you hand me a picture you drew on a $100 bill. Then I turn around and sell the picture for $900. Then my brother walks up, winks at me and says, "hello stranger, did you pay your $780 in production crossline integration fees" I say "Oh gee, I forgot, lets do this thing right". turn to you and I give you $120. Then after you leave my brother comes back and gives me back the money.

I'll go look up that article and post it here, really interesting stuff.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Place in my town rents a full red Package for $495 a day. For a 15 day rental that's $7500. A chunk to be sure, but in the context of even a VERY low budget (50K) feature it's not a totally unreasonable expense.

Unless I have the budget to do otherwise I have every intention of shooting a feature on a 5DMK2 in 2012. If I have more money that I expect (doing a budget at about 4 different levels, 30K, 60K, 100K, 150K, and 250K) I'll upgrade, but likely not to 35mm.

 

[2001 Productions]

I'll hold my nose and defend the studios a little bit here.

A studio is a corporation. Each year, a studio outputs a slate of pictures: their "product". Let's say they put out 10 pictures, each of which costs $100 million to make (oversimplification, I know, but go with it), for a total production cost of $1 billion.

Now, 2 of those 10 pictures are big hits and pull in $500 million each. That's $800 million in profit for those two pictures, right? Well, except that P & A for each picture was another $100 million apiece, which brings the take down to $600 million. And then, of course, there's the exhibitors' shares of box office -- lets say another $100 million. Now we're at $500 million profit. Still not bad.

Except they've still got 8 other pictures that cost a total of $800 million to produce and, say, another $500 million to distribute and advertise, for a total of $1.3 billion. Some of them will make a little money, some will break even and some will flop. Whatever the case, that $500 million gets eaten up pretty quickly.

And we haven't even talked about dividends paid to stockholders in these corporations. It's easy to scoff at "creative accounting" at the studios, but the reality is that nobody knows anything, meaning they hope every film will be a hit but they really don't have a clue what will catch the public's fancy. Just like with any corporation that produces any product, the hits pay for the flops.

 

[Nate North]

That seems pretty reasonable. I wish my town had that store.

Still for someone who works all the time (I do tv commercials when not making a film) I think purchase is better. In 4 months I could own that RED camera and shoot 2 more films on it for an averaged cost of 3k a month across the 3 shoots. Then afterwards sell the camera used for 15k and your average monthly camera cost is under 2k. If you can afford 500 a day, why not just pay off the $1000 loan payment once a month instead?

What's the name of this store? I have occasional need for 3 day shoot type stuff, right now in fact.

 

[Nate North]

vanishing dollar=white collar

I'll hold my nose and defend the studios a little bit here.

A studio is a corporation. Each year, a studio outputs a slate of pictures: their "product". Let's say they put out 10 pictures, each of which costs $100 million to make (oversimplification, I know, but go with it), for a total production cost of $1 billion.

Now, 2 of those 10 pictures are big hits and pull in $500 million each. That's $800 million in profit for those two pictures, right? Well, except that P & A for each picture was another $100 million apiece, which brings the take down to $600 million. And then, of course, there's the exhibitors' shares of box office -- lets say another $100 million. Now we're at $500 million profit. Still not bad.

Except they've still got 8 other pictures that cost a total of $800 million to produce and, say, another $500 million to distribute and advertise, for a total of $1.3 billion. Some of them will make a little money, some will break even and some will flop. Whatever the case, that $500 million gets eaten up pretty quickly.

And we haven't even talked about dividends paid to stockholders in these corporations. It's easy to scoff at "creative accounting" at the studios, but the reality is that nobody knows anything, meaning they hope every film will be a hit but they really don't have a clue what will catch the public's fancy. Just like with any corporation that produces any product, the hits pay for the flops.

I really disagree with this method. That's no defense at all in my opinion. What this amounts to is that the studio is covering external losses out of my profits. That's like my boss saying, hey your paycheck is missing a zero because I went to Vegas this weekend and lost big. Creative accounting is just the super rich excusing criminal actions like taking 400 million dollars out of your paycheck under false pretenses to cover a failure you had nothing to do with.

A lot of studio films are terrible, are we really doing the world a favor keeping studios that fail 8 out of 10 films alive? If they were gone, there's always the possibility of someone better replacing them.

Anyway it's all theoretical, you can't unseat a billionaire, they just have enough cash to rewrite the rules of the game until they win every time. Like casinos. I think someone who wants a really fair shake in the film world has to go through the insane work of setting up their own studio. If the house always wins, build a house. (little easier said than done)

 

[sonnyboo]

About the RED. I'm not sure about the red. It really doesn't look so much like movie camera footage. I saw Peter Jackson make a film with one, and it still didn't look movie quality. Even the Cinealtas (pre-f23) have mostly produced bad dull looking films, with the very notable exception of Star Wars episode 1-3. Seems like the best anyone else gets out of them is those grainy grey euro crime thrillers, 100% of which star Shawn Bean for some reason.

Steven Soderberg's last 6 films are shot with the RED ONE cameras. CHE part 1 and 2 were entirely shot with RED and technically the first feature films ever shot with them. I thought both films looked amazing and cinematic.

Star Wars Episode I Phantom Menace was shot with 35mm Panavision cameras, with the exception of 1 scene (Qui Gon talking on the radio to Obi-Wan about Midichlorians) that was shot with a prototype Cinealta. I thought the reboot of Battlestar Galactica was amazingly cinematic, but they really went with a high contrast look. The mini-series was shot 35mm (Panavision also), but then the entire show from there was shot on Cinealta F900 or F950.

This is entirely subjective and nobody's opinion is right or wrong. I've seen a lot of incredibly beautiful films shot on the RED, and in most cases indistinguishable from celluloid film. The F23 and F35 replacements for the 900 series from Sony have great improvements in image. All SHOWTIME shows are Sony HD originated now.

As far as the studios renting cameras instead of buying, My belief is that they rent the cameras to themselves as part of their crazy accounting process.

They mostly rent PANAVISION cameras and lenses, that are not for sale; only rent.

Arriflex sells cameras, and Panavision even buys them and modifies them to make them Panavision, but probably 75% of all Hollywood films are shot on Panavision cameras and lenses, and even more with TV shows that originate on film.

Maybe you aren't look in the right places as I could rent a RED camera in California, from north to south, for under $500 a day...

email me and I'll send you some contacts.

 

[2001 Productions]

I really disagree with this method. That's no defense at all in my opinion. What this amounts to is that the studio is covering external losses out of my profits. That's like my boss saying, hey your paycheck is missing a zero because I went to Vegas this weekend and lost big. Creative accounting is just the super rich excusing criminal actions like taking 400 million dollars out of your paycheck under false pretenses to cover a failure you had nothing to do with.

A lot of studio films are terrible, are we really doing the world a favor keeping studios that fail 8 out of 10 films alive? If they were gone, there's always the possibility of someone better replacing them.

Anyway it's all theoretical, you can't unseat a billionaire, they just have enough cash to rewrite the rules of the game until they win every time. Like casinos. I think someone who wants a really fair shake in the film world has to go through the insane work of setting up their own studio. If the house always wins, build a house. (little easier said than done)

You are absolutely entitled to disagree with that method. A filmmaker has zero obligation to fund his/her picture using studio money. George Lucas funds his own pictures and keeps the lion's share of the profits. If you have that kind of money to spend, more power to you!

But, as a producer you can't expect a studio to invest it's money to fund 100% of your picture, then give away the profits if the picture hits. They'd be out of business in a year. No sane financier would go for that deal.

I'm not saying the studios aren't occasionally scoundrels, just that they operate just like any other business.

 

[Nate North]

Given,

I'm just saying that unfairness to the little guy shouldn't be an accepted default. George lucas is really a great filmmaker, but he was never a little guy. I looked into it and this guy could have bought and sold my entire extended family before he was old enough to talk. Then he was loaned more money than ten standard geniuses see in a lifetime, then given more money and a time extension.

Just seems a bit ludicrous to say "you can always do what George did" when 99.9999% of the population will never have that option. I can make a good film someday, but I can't go back and pick my parents. Without both pieces of the puzzle, star wars would have never been made. So while I used to look at this guy and say, "he's 100 times better than me" I now say, "he's twice as good and started with 50x the advantages"

I wish I was still uninformed, it used to be easier to sucessfully picture making into the industry before I found out that 80% of the big names used the Paris Hilton method of acquiring their positions hundreds of miles above me.

Starting out rich definitely doesn't preclude talent, George proves that. But in a world with a limited stage, it doesn't feel like much of a meritocracy out there.

Nobody expects 100% of profits, I'm mainly taking issue that they artificially make most of the profits dissapear, and then try to pay you a percentage of the false remainder. It's cheating. If it's such an above board practice, why set up this complex tapestry of backroom accounting slight of hand?

 

[2001 Productions]

Nobody expects 100% of profits, I'm mainly taking issue that they artificially make most of the profits dissapear, and then try to pay you a percentage of the false remainder. It's cheating. If it's such an above board practice, why set up this complex tapestry of backroom accounting slight of hand?

I feel like the devil's advocate here because I'm not crazy about the studio system, either. But at the same time, misconceptions like "complex tapestry of backroom accounting sleight-of-hand" (a wonderfully turned phrase, btw ) make me feel like I need to side with them. What I've been trying to explain (apparently unsuccessfully) is that there really is nothing "backroom" about it.

Think of it this way: You have an idea for a new car design. You obviously cannot afford to actually construct and mass-produce the car yourself, so you go to Ford Motor Company. They like your idea and buy it from you, and also hire you to supervise its construction. You are paid handsomely for both the idea and for your work putting it together. Once the car is finished, however, Ford begins to mass-produce the car and they wind up selling ten million of them because you designed such a great car. Job well done on your part, but they certainly aren't going to give you those profits on top of what they already paid you. They own the design -- they paid you for it.

Suppose your car was a flop. Are they going to come to you and demand their money back because you designed an Edsel? Of course not. They took all the financial risk and will absorb all of the losses. You got paid either way, so you obviously aren't being screwed in that example. Why would it be any different if it was a success?

Now, suppose you're Steven Spielberg and you design a string of cars that sell like crazy. Ford wants to keep you on staff because you've got a proven track record, so they agree to pay you a percentage of gross profits. Now you're seeing a piece of the pie; but how many of us are Steven Spielberg?

I hope this makes sense, because I'm running out of ways to explain it.

 

[Nate North]

I think you've explained it really well already. You make a good case for the studios. I guess in the light of your last explanation I can see it from their perspective more clearly.

I think my grasp on this like many, is clouded by considering a movie a creative work of art. If you look at it like a commodity and emotionally detach from your work, then the view you propose seems much more equitable.

The article I read that started this discussion leaned heavily toward studios cooking their books so that the best creative teams got next to nothing and average management middlemen became staggeringly rich.

I don't mean to strike an argumentative tone, I just work with a lot of management types and know how they often value their work forwarding emails as more than equal to the efforts of those who create the finished projects they forward. Maybe I'm getting jaded, but it's a lot to swallow that California businessmen in positions of power are all behaving ethically and I just don't get it. Remember when the housing market crashed and when they started turning over rocks, like 50% of all the brokers were intentionally screwing clients, sending each other colorful emails praising their own ingenuity in selling bloated sub prime mortgages. They found some 26 year old kid working at one of the largest NYC firms, he had put something like 18k people out of their houses and received a bonus of over 1.3 million that year. And everyone says the entertainment industry is more corrupt than wall street.

Again not arguing, just saying that anyone worried about being taken advantage of by large businesses has at least a somewhat valid concern. Thanks for answering my question.

 

[2001 Productions]

You know the golden rule, right?

He who has the gold, makes the rules.

 

[Nate North]

lol. Right you are. I have to get some of this gold I've been hearing so much about.

 

[Nate North]

George lucas is really a great filmmaker, but he was never a little guy. I looked into it and this guy could have bought and sold my entire extended family before he was old enough to talk. Then he was loaned more money than ten standard geniuses see in a lifetime, then given more money and a time extension.

Correction,

I thought my memory might be a little off on this so I went and checked his biography, which puts his upbringing as wealthy but not excessively so like I insinuated. I got this initial skewed figure from some 15 year old Star Wars documentary, which insinuated that right after THX 1138 his family started backing him to the tune of 10's of millions.

I'm glad to find out he really did struggle like crazy, I was getting discouraged to find out so many success stories had family money in common.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I just have to snark a little at the studio "accounting" practices comments from 2001 Prods....

The another reason accounting practices like that happen in the first place is the crazy tax set-up in and out of this country; corporations need to be creative so they don't get entirely fleeced.

And on the renting vs. buying debate... Three years ago how many people sank their money into the latest greatest camera, only to now have buyers remorse when everyone went crazy over DSLRs. Within two years most of this years DSLR buyers will have buyers remorse when the next generation DSLRs come out with many more video features and adequate audio implementation.

The biggest problem with low/no/micro budget indies is the "just get out there and shoot" attitude without adequate planning/preproduction and an true, deep understanding of the craft. It's a tremendous boon to the video and audio equipment manufacturers but does a disservice to the art of filmmaking.

I own what I need to own to run my audio post business, but I rent a lot of other things on a per project basis; that way I can have the latest greatest toy for the current project that will be an expensive paperweight next year.

 

[Nate North]

I look at films from the last 50 years though and I think, if you bought the best camera in the world in 1985, you could still be making movies with it today. How much better does Back to the Future look than Collateral. I think if you bought an F-23 today, and kept it in shape, you could make relevant movies for many years, maybe the rest of your life.

Watching Blu-Rays of old movies has really blown my mind. I imagined myself living in this high tech future, where movies had improved 100x, but with the blu rays you can see that 25 years or no, Lethal weapon looked better the day it came out than any F-900 film. Nobody's throwing away their Stratocasters becuase of the Variax, you know?

 

[2001 Productions]

I look at films from the last 50 years though and I think, if you bought the best camera in the world in 1985, you could still be making movies with it today. How much better does Back to the Future look than Collateral. I think if you bought an F-23 today, and kept it in shape, you could make relevant movies for many years, maybe the rest of your life.

I both agree and disagree with this.

It's true that a good story, well told transcends the medium used to tell it. Also, the tool is only as good as the person using it. Give a skilled filmmaker a cheap handicam and s/he'll make a better film than an amateur with an Arriflex.

On the other hand, you have to acknowledge the distinction between film and videotape. Film has been around for more than a century. While the grain structure, color reproduction, etc. has been improved over the decades, film has always been a high-quality medium. A functioning camera body and a decent set of optics always produced nice, sharp images if used properly.

Video, however, hasn't always been anywhere near the quality it is now. I don't know your age, but if you were using videotape back in 1985 you'll know what I'm talking about. The most expensive video cameras at that time - some of which cost upwards of $100,000 - recorded images that a $400 camcorder today can match or exceed. If you didn't have that kind of money to spend - as I didn't - you were stuck with home video technology. That was incredibly frustrating because I could spend hours carefully lighting a scene and making sure that everything was perfect, but the images produced by the camera just looked like crap (to me). It was very discouraging, and I abandoned several projects for that very reason.

 

[CamVader]

I've been following this thread, Nate, and you are a purist through and through. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Just try to keep in mind the scope of independent film from the very basic and low budget to the much more advanced and budget ample. This community ranges all they way from enthusiasts to industry professionals and is very supportive of all skill levels and aspirations. I've been blown away by the support and teaching that happens here every day.

That being said, your negative vibe is killing my buzz.

Peace. No hard feelings I hope.