Hijacking a thread!: Let's play What If...

Status
Not open for further replies.
...firstly, I am hijacking a thread. The independant movie industry one is making my head hurt.

...However, I actually got an idea when looking it over...

...In my home town, there are two small independently owned movie theaters. They both only have one screen. Now, of course, there are the 'movieplexes'; GKC and AMC, but these two little theaters are second run houses.

...In the metro Detroit area, there are two independantly owned and operated theaters that are well known for showing independant films, (the Maple and Main Art Theaters).

...I would think that there are little one screen theaters all over the country like these, one screen, showing art, indie or second run films.

...What if these owners could be convinced that there is an audience for indie film (because there is) and also be impressed upon to make some sort of 'commitment to showing indie film? What if they could become maybe a co-op (?), where they decide and agree that okay, we will show 'Primer', we will show 'Murderball', we will show 'Memento', show 'Supersize Me' or whatever indie film is being appreciated.

...since Hollywood wants so much to show 'Dukes of Hazzard', fine. These theaters could commit to showing these small films that people hear just won at Sundance or Cannes or Slamdance or what have you as an alternative to the usual fare.

...maybe, since they know (indie filmmakers can impress this upon them) that indie filmmakers are usually just this side of broke, they can give cut rates to these filmmakers. This way, they have more films to choose from with an almost guaranteed audience of people who want more to watch than yet another car chase and explosion and the indie filmmakers have a place to show.

...since these films are often considered to be 'art' and therefore present a service to the community, maybe they could be advertised on the televised community bulletin boards that tv stations sometimes use to satisfy fcc regulations of community service and therefore would be free advertising.

...maybe an agreement could be made to show, say 'Primer' for about 2 weeks. If it does well (relatively well) give another week. If not, well, it had a 2 week run in a theater which is enough time for people to find the film and like it or not like it. People vote with thier pocketbooks.

...if the film gets discovered by Hollywood the way 'Resevouir Dogs' did, then okay, the film gets picked up, and good luck, but since the indie theaters made the initial committment to a film that was initially ignored by the Big Industry, something is given in exchange for the 'release' of this film to the bigger distributor, like 'This film discovered by Indie Co-op Theaters' or something like that. Something that would make it worth the risk of taking on the film in the first place and to make up for the loss of a film that might have a distribution machine to push it and possibly take it to the level of a blockbuster film.

...it would be nice if the cost of making the film could be lowered also, at least a little, like equipment rental or film transfer, so that people could have real access to services to produce the film. (I personally am tired of hearing people say they charge what the market will bear. People pay this because they have to in order to get their vision made. Not because they are happy to do so. No more, no less).

...this is about as far as I got on this 'idea'. Somebody with more business know how than I might be able to come up with a way to make this work...

--spinner :cool:
 
Boz Uriel said:
So, "what if" we use Internet distribution. I keep reading in Wired mag how all the experts say Internet distribution is the wave of the future with music and movies and how Hollywood is dead set against even looking at the idea. "What if" the new indie industry embraces it?

Music success stories are trickling in. Bands are getting a following by offering a few songs for free or under a dollar. Seems to me peeking interest in indie films could be as easy as a web site. Either have the whole thing downloadable for $ or teasers and a schedule of where it's playing and maybe a "how to" get a movie playing locally for those without indie theaters.

...well, I think, to distribute: sure, use the net, to make it available to purchase: sure, use the net. To SHOW? Naah, I think a movie/film should be seen on a big screen, not on a 24" screen...

--spinner :cool:
 
For what it's worth in the overall scope of this discussion - I talked with the owner of a 600 seat cinema here in town (it's divided into 2 300-seat theaters, so two features playing at a time.)

One of his biggest concerns over running indie films is advertising. Clearly it's a heavy expense, and a major determining factor in (a) whether the movie is money maker in his theater; (b) how long he can afford to dedicate a screen film.

As an example (I'm not commenting about the film itself), Farenheit 911 was a huge success here in town. The chain theaters didn't run it and there was a huge amount of word-of-mouth advertising. Print (newspaper) advertising, at first anyway, was limited but still the little theater here in town was packed almost every showing.

Successfully creating an underground "buzz" surrounding a movie or two would be an interesting experiment. I think it can be done effectively and for almost no cost.
 
Oh good one Steve. I think it's a wonderful idea to go ask these theaters. I'm going to do that too. ;)

Successfully creating an underground "buzz" surrounding a movie or two would be an interesting experiment.
You mean something like a clacker in the audience of a stage play who claps to get everyone else clapping? Artificially generated buzz?
 
Hey everyone,

I'm new to this forum, and I probably wouldn't have registered except for these conversations about the indie filmmaking industry. However, I read about half of the posts under the "it's time for a new independent movie industry" thread and was amazed at how quickly that degenerated into bickering.

Anyway, I'm just a college student but I've been studying the film industry in Senegal, West Africa, for a total of about three months over the past year. If you think you guys have it tough in the States or Europe, imagine what it's like trying to produce a film in a developing country. There are amazing scripts, respected directors, technical talent, but the money is completely missing. The films that actually have been produced, usually with foreign money, tend to outshine most American and European independent films, at least on a creative level. But there are still huge untapped creative resources there, just begging for a chance.

But to get back to the subject at hand, I'm going to throw a bit of an academic curveball into this discussion: One of the basic principles I've been working with in this research is that film or audiovisual industries must adapt to their particular social, economic, political and cultural settings. Hollywood did this at the beginning of the 20th century in the United States. It industrialized filmmaking for the first time with the studio system, and created practices for making cinema more efficient to produce, distribute, and exhibit. Since it worked so well, most people accept it as the best possible system, and other industries in the world, including the Western indie industry, use Hollywood as their benchmark.

Well, the situation in the United States and elsewhere in the world has changed and is continuing to change. I do not believe that Hollywood is still the most effective possible system, and the evidence is in the problems that it is currently facing. Piracy is becoming worse, as is the shift away from theaters and towards video distribution. Special effects no longer draw in huge crowds, because it's something people now take for granted. Hollywood can't even use it's star system effectively anymore; producers are packing their films with stars and still not getting the expected audiences. And perhaps most importantly, digital technologies have put so much power in the hands of the public that there's no real incentive for Hollywood to spend millions on an interesting film that doesn't rely on heavy special effects or specific star actors. Everything else can be done with a fraction of that budget, as I'm sure many of you can attest to.

So, to summarize, I think Hollywood as we know it is dying, or at least it's going to have to undergo some significant changes to survive. So maybe that's what will happen, and we'll just hit a rough spot for a couple of years until they get their act together. But what excites me is that this means there really is a chance for a new type of industry to develop, one that is willing to go where Hollywood won't, and willing to reconceptualize the film industry in general. My experience in Senegal has given me some ideas, and one of them seems like it might actually work. But I also think it's interesting to see that other people are trying to brainstorm some concepts. I think it's great, and I think the best ideas will come out when people are willing to let slide some firmly-held beliefs about how the industry is supposed to work. It's an awful cliche, but keep thinking outside the box... or maybe the boxoffice!

Alex
 
Anyway, I'm just a college student but I've been studying the film industry in Senegal, West Africa, for a total of about three months over the past year. If you think you guys have it tough in the States or Europe, imagine what it's like trying to produce a film in a developing country. There are amazing scripts, respected directors, technical talent, but the money is completely missing. The films that actually have been produced, usually with foreign money, tend to outshine most American and European independent films, at least on a creative level. But there are still huge untapped creative resources there, just begging for a chance.

I completely agree, which why I'm in the process of trying to set up a co-production with filmmakers and actors in Ghana for my next project.

I think actually Africa has a better chance of breaking the Hollywood business model than we do in the West. This has already happened in Nigeria where films are sold direct to the customer on VHS via market stalls and hairdresssing salons. The problem is with this market is that it has no potential at all at the moment to break out into international markets, it's a completely home grown market.

Personally I think a low cost digital cinema chain in many African countries has a real chance of sucess, especially if they also duplicate and sell tapes/dvds direct to the public as part of the business.

I think Africa could boom as far as digital film production goes, especially if we can find ways to keep the profits in the countries of origin.

I'd like to talk more about this.
 
I think the idea of an affiliation of independent filmmakers to exploit digital venues in local cinemas is a great idea. I think it is good enough idea for me to make a cash contribution when the time comes. I hope its not just talk. Elly
 
I see a potential for this to work, not just for art pictures, or huge budget indies ( > $1000 ;) )...but for smaller fare as well. No name people you know kind of stuff. Facts:

1. theater chains pay to show movies hoping for a return on the investment at the box office.
2. indy filmmakers currently pay to make their films which mostly (no research here) aren't financially beneficial to them or their productions companies/investors.
3. indy filmmakers have to pay to enter film fests after going broke to make a (hopefully) break-even movie.
4. only the successful festival entries become financially viable
5. commercial films succeed initially through media blitzes

(don't corect me if I'm wrong...I've done no research)

If you could talk a local theater (second run, cheap seats, arthouse...whatever) into commiting to playing 2 indie screens per week/day/whatever. If they invest in a digital projector (office max < $1000) and a dvd player. We give (contracts for screening, no up front cost for them) them our movies on dvd to screen and take %50 (negotiable) of the box office.

You also talk to the local paper about this plan once the screenings are in place and see if they would want to have a set place in their entertainment section to advertise the films being screened that week.

If we get a network of these theaters and they stay in contact with each other about films that are selling well, the films that screen well could make a circuit...or do simultaneous screenings if big enough. this goes back to the 2 screenings a week...one is one of the wider distribution films and the other is a new/local thing.

a screening could be considered:

a feature
a short + a feature
3-4 shorts

These don't necessarily all have to be from the same producer/director either.

The filmmaker wins by having a venue they don't have to pay for
The theater wins by having films they can screen for free that no one else has
The circuit wins by having test marketing done in the originating theater
The newspaper wins by having readers digging through their newspaper scanning ads to try to find out what's playing this week
The community wins by promoting art in their community

There is also a possibilty that the theaters can apply for grants for donating space/equipment to the filmmaking community under state arts grants.

Now this stuff can be shot down...all these ideas take is one motivated individual to get every thing going in each community...we could all then reconvene here and get contact info shared for each of the theaters/programs involved. Box numbers vs. population can be measured to determine marketability of the films to share throughout the circuit.
 
a feature
a short + a feature
3-4 shorts

...this is what they used to do, kind of: back in the day they would show a newsreel, a cartoon, a musical and the movie feature. Going to the movies must have been an all day event....


The filmmaker wins by having a venue they don't have to pay for
The theater wins by having films they can screen for free that no one else has
The circuit wins by having test marketing done in the originating theater
The newspaper wins by having readers digging through their newspaper scanning ads to try to find out what's playing this week
The community wins by promoting art in their community
...that's what I'm talking about! There are so many ways we can become a part of the community in terms of offering something cultural to the areas we are in. And if the film goes big time, mores the better...


There is also a possibilty that the theaters can apply for grants for donating space/equipment to the filmmaking community under state arts grants.
...from the grantseeking I've been doing, I know this can be done...


Now this stuff can be shot down...all these ideas take is one motivated individual to get every thing going in each community...
...well, maybe not one, most likely not one, but I get the idea and I'm sure post-ers do, too :yes:
and to shoot down the idea is to not be thinking in a progressive manner. I hate this cliche' but we all need to think outside the box (as said here before)...


we could all then reconvene here and get contact info shared for each of the theaters/programs involved. Box numbers vs. population can be measured to determine marketability of the films to share throughout the circuit.
...who says it can't work? ...it could, you know....

--spinner :cool:
 
ok...your turn...here is the text of the e-mail I just sent to the local theater mega plex purveyor:

My name is Cole McDonald. I am an independent filmmaker in the St. Cloud, MN area.

I've been considering how my film will be distributed when I'm finished and have found some missing opportunities for both filmmakers and theaters. I am only trying to determine interest at this point, there are many factors to be considered.

The current model for theaters as I understand it:

Studio makes and markets a film
Theaters pay to get a copy of the film to play (for a set amount of time?)
Theaters use the box office take to produce ROI
Theaters supplement Box Office revenues with concessions
When the Movie is replaced in the primary theater, Movie is moved to a second run house ([Local second run theater])
Box Office is used to supplement the ROI until interest wanes in the film being played
Box Office revenues from the second run house need to exceed a certain level to make any profit whatsoever (x seats/showing @ $1.50/seat + concessions)

The problems I see with the second run theater model is that by the time a movie has made it to the theater, it has been replaced by newer movies which are currently undergoing much better publicity and therefor more visible to the public. This leaves the second run theater to pick up lower income audiences and audiences who missed the film in the first run theaters.

The current model for independent filmmakers as I understand it:

Filmmaker raises money and gathers interest in a project
Filmmaker invests time and money into a project that may or may not succeed
Filmmaker completes project and pays to apply to film festivals to get screen time for their labors
Filmmaker tries to make enough money to pay back the investors (often themselves) of the film
Filmmaker repeats the process

The problems I see with the current independent model is that by the time they have completed their project, they often have to go through a second fundraising effort to get the funding to submit to film festivals to get any screen time.

I believe these two models can come together to alleviate some of the problems of both without negatively impacting the revenue stream of the theater. If the second run theater were to sacrifice 2 showings a week of second run films, they could replace them with first run independent films, either in the form of a feature or a series of 3 or 4 short films. The Box Office for these would probably support a $4 to $5 ticket cost + concessions. If this cost is cut between the theater and the filmmaker, both will benefit from this arrangement. The costs can be significantly lowered for the theaters by using low cost digital projection (i.e. an LCD Projector and a DVD Player) and saving wear and tear on their 35mm projector.

I am currently in contact with individuals from other parts of the country who are seeking theaters to commit to the same process in their towns which would generate a distribution channel for films that aren't currently being seen anywhere other than film festivals. The Box Office take for a particular film could be weighed against the population of an area to generate a metric of the films popularity. This metric could be applied to a threshold beyond which the films in question would be sent to other theaters in the channel. This would offset the risk for the theaters and encourage filmmakers to maintain a level of quality for the works being distributed. Since The items being shipped are DVD's, the cost is low enough that distribution can be the responsibility of the filmmaker. This will still be less expensive than a festival entry for them. At this point, one of the showings per week would be local fare and the other would be from the distribution chain.

Details would definitely need to be discussed. Specifically; content allowed, revenue division, projection equipment acquisition and public interest in the endeavor.

Please take the time to consider this proposal and let me know whether to pursue this idea through you or elsewhere.

Cole McDonald

p.s. I believe that [the local university] may have some screenings of selected independent/foreign works, but I feel the public and the filmmakers would like to have the experience of the pleated red curtains on the wall and real live concessions in front of a full sized movie screen.
 
I'd be interested in the answer you get.

I presented a similar scheme to the UK Film Council. There was response was very negative and a lot of feedback was about cinemas not being sure about three things:

1) Whether there were enough films out there worth showing to justify the expense (Their arguement is that if a film is good enough it will get mainstream distribution)
2) They weren't convinced that audiences would turn out to see films that they'd never heard of.
3) They were doubly unsure that audiences would pay to watch films projected of DVD with low cost projection systems, when their home TV/cinema set ups would probably deliver better pictures.

Any scheme that is going to suceed has to overcome the above objections. Of which the two most important are

1) Are there enough films that haven't got distribtion, but are good enough to make an audience feel like they've got their monies worth? (Yes isn't an answer, we'd need evidence)
2) What's the marketing strategy going to be, bearing in mind that there is no publicity budget for this project.

I've got two established/large city cinema venues I could put films into right now, but right as of this moment I've got no films to put into them.

I think maybe this kind of project needs a test run before scaling up. Instead of going into a full time weekly, international distribution of multiple films we could look at seeing if we could build a buzz for just one feature and maybe three shorts as a package.

For the right film I'd be willing to set up a showing in the my part of the UK and to send out a few press releases.

So, has anyonw got a film that fits the bill and how many of us are up for doing this for real, just once to see what happens?
 
I'll lend a hand where needed, Clive.
I'm not sure how much I would be able to do, but even if it's as simple as promoting an event, I'd dedicate my time and effort just to see what kind of respose we'd get.
 
Hypothetical question

When you buy a ticket to see a movie in a movie theater, it's clear that your money is not going directly to the producer of the film. The theater takes a piece to cover its operation costs and profit, the distributor takes a piece, and the producer takes a piece.

Now, let's theoretically imagine that the idea people have been talking about - showing indie films in movie theaters - actually worked AND neither the movie theater nor the distributor (if there even is one) take any of the ticket revenue for themselves - it all goes to you, the indie film producer. Of course, things like spreading the word about your movie are up to you. And just for the sake of argument, let's say that theoretically your movie was playing nation-wide this way, but of course, the only people who are going to show up are people who have seen your marketing in some way, or maybe a few random stragglers.

So here's the hypothetical question: how much would you charge people per ticket? Maybe estimate how big your film budgets are, how many people you think you could reach with your own marketing, and what sort of profit, if any, you'd like to make; of course, also think about how a higher price is more likely to turn away potential viewers, and how a lower price may provide for better exposure to you for your next project, even if this time you don't earn quite as much.

So, any estimates? Maybe just throw out some rough budgets and anticipated number of viewers?

Thanks,
Alex
 
There would absolutely have to be a cut for the theater...they have wages to pay, electricity/environmentals and insurance to have the theater run at all. I'm not sure what the demand would be in other markets...or this one for that matter. This would be related to the amount of marketing we would do locally...once I get a commitment of interest from a theater, I'm going to hit up the local news papers as a local interest story/entertainment piece...post flyers, hand out literature to the theater/film department at the local college...talk to other art houses and theaters (stage types) about letting people know or handing out fliers/posting in their publications/fliers. We used to promote local punk shows this way...fliers made at kinko's and hand distributed leaving us with full houses to recoup the cost of the advertising and the rest got split between the bands and the venue.

Once this becomes a regular thing that has a regular audience, the marketing can be lessened and the audience size should be self sustaining. This isn't a let's make sure everybody's film gets on the screen...this is a let's start considering how to get exposure for film makers who want to make movies for wider audiences. The successful movies will sell sufficiently to be sent out to the rest of the distribution channel that is created. This would be based on a metric based on box office take per capita of a population center. This would give a number that could be applied to a metric that is based on audience acceptance of a picture rather than the distributors bias.

$4-$5 / ticket should be able to cover...the cheap seats in town now is charging $1.50 per seat. At $4 / seat...the theater is making more than they do at their normal prices with a 50% cut.
 
Last edited:
How cinema works

OK. I think this might help.

In the UK the cinema hires the film print, usually for a week's run. For this they pay £250 ($450) plus 25% of the box office receipts. The actual figures on this can vary, with blockbuster films demanding more on the front end or a larger percentage. The cinemas agree because they know those films will bring in enough people for them to make a little bit.

With indie films, the problem with cinema distribution has always been that distributors don't to invest in multiple film prints (Large expense) and the publicity needed to generate an audience. This is especially true when the large chains of cinemas don't take indie film (rarely happens) and this restricts the number of potential venues. So in the UK you might be looking at 100 posible venues. For the distributor, if every indie venue takes the film they are looking at a return of only £25,000. That wouldn't even cover the cost of the film print plus marketing.

Some cinemas do show films off DVD, for private parties. They hire them for £80 a night from a specialist distributor and the these are all major release back catalogue.

Cinemas are nervous about any lowering of the projection standards and use 35mm projection as the baseline. I've got venues where that isn't a consideration, but they don't pull the same kind of audiences.

So in real terms this means that a cinema space has to generate at least $100 in a single showing to cover the film costs and then they also have high fixed costs, so my guess is that you'd have to double that and then provide at least 50% of the take to make the cinema happy. I think you're looking at having to offer $200 plus 50% to get a mainstream cinema venue interested. At $5 a seat you are looking at a minimum of forty customers just to cover these basic costs and every customer over that figure is worth $2.50 to you. Out of that $2.50/per you have to take your running and publicity costs. Which gives you the classic business dilema "How much money to I have to spend on publicity in order to make back the money I spent on publicity?"

So, if you decide to take $1 per for marketing and you aim to get 140 paying punters in to see the film (Doubtful) that means you have $100 marketing budget and I don't think that's anywhere enough to do the job.

I'll write more on this later, but I've got to go now.
 
I guess I could relate our marketing strategy for our first screening of MB3K.
We started out with word of mouth, emails, postings on forums, industry boards such as mandy.com, etc.
For about 2k (CAN) we printed 2000 large posters, 2000 color paper posters and about 4000 black and white posters, plus 4000 6"x4" handouts with all the info on them.
The director and I went out on two huge posting runs downtown, where we covered 5 major streets in Toronto. Every day I went out for a few hours re-posting the ones that were torn down by the city.
The venue we screend at, The Bloor Cinema, had a monthly newspaper, which gave us a picture and synopsis (ironically I submitted a "high concept" and a "synopsis" and it was published as "High Concept: yadda yadda, synopsis: Macbeth yadda yadda")
I sent press kits to the big free newpapers, NOW magazine and EYE magazine. From those, and the Bloor newsletter, we were listed on every movie listing website I know of, from Tribute, on down to an Ottawa listing webpage.
I handed out our cards to practically everyone I passed on the streets, even hitting up a line-up for a Zwan (Billy Corgan) concert with about 200 people in line.
When posting, we talked to quite a few people on the street, including some fellow filmmakers! Street networking!
We advertised in University areas, highly populated areas, etc. Taget market stuff.
We had two different posters printed with different looks, and alternated every pole.
Asked a few store-owners if we could post some posters and leave some handouts on the counters.

All in all, we had around 500 people show up, which just allowed us to break even. We had rented the cinema for $800, and booked a bar for the after party for $1000.
At $7 a ticket, we sold the soudntrack ($10), leftover posters (with autographs) ($5) (or unsigned for $3), and a few other things.
The cinema only took the full consession money, and we got 100% of the ticket sales.
There were many family, friends, cast/crew there... but lots of people just walking in off the streets. I wish I knew a breakdown of what form of ads worked best, but it was a hectic night.
We then had our Drama/English teacher introduce us, and we threw some MB3K T-shirts into the crowd. I hope the people that got them wear them from time to time.
Youngcuts Intenational Festival helped us by putting our trailer up on thier site before we had sent them our submission, and that helped a whole lot- thanks Peter if you come here!
And other than all that, I put away my shame and made sure to mention MB3K in almost everything I did.

Well, that was our first screening. I guess anyone else who arranged thier premiere (like the Whitewash folks) could post thier methods and results, and perhaps we'll find a common denominator.
 
The part I seemed to have ignored is the theater recouping the money they would have made playing the movie they are not currently playing. I was figuring the profit...but not the fact that they are not purchasing the print...but paying for a limited time run of the film. They would have to make at least that to make it a viable source of revenue...back to the books.

@spat...I think the common denominator is $$$. There will always be a potential outlet for the film given enough money. The part I'm trying to do would make both parties come out ahead where the filmmaker wouldn't have to spend as much to get distribution (DVD's are cheap). And the theaters wouldn't have to pay for the films to run...but they've already paid for the film to run...and my showing would interrupt that revenue stream. I'd need to be able to offset that loss.

I'm trying to find a way to get a sustainable distribution chain that's affordable for the filmmaker, the public and the theaters that run it.
 
Cinemas around the world all want the same thing! They want to be the first to show the hotest film around! You can be sure they will expect big names with a good track record at the box office and hopefully they will cash in. However this is not good news for the unknown indie filmaker and people are always wary of things they do not know. For example when i started printing postcards from my own photographs, i marketed my work by canvassing local independent shops and recieved a tentative response saying at best "i shall give them a try first with about a dozen..." and some of these shops did not want to pay for them until they had sold it. However when my postcards had all sold out within a week, their attitude towards me became "very respectful" because money talks in every language.

Cinemas are wary of unknown films with an unknown cast because they think it will not sell, but if you refer back to my experience with the postcards i seriously think that we indie filmakers do not sell ourselves enough. But you can always canvass a cinema and we can build our contacts worldwide via this web site.

But the most important aspect is the content of your film because thats what the viewer pays to see. Think of a film as a sales package that will make an impact and create lots of free publicity for itself. It pays to be controversial and shocking because viewers will talk about it. Recently i wrote a stage play called "Worse Than Hell" which is about the Devil releasing four actors from eternal purgatory to produce the most blasphemous show in history! One scene includes Jesus coming down from heaven and having sex with a blonde lovedoll called Margaret!!! It has not got into a theatre yet but it generated a huge interest on the web...

Also i think its a good idea to invite as many hairdressers to your premiere as possible because they spend all day talking into peoples heads...
 
The thing is, there is a NEED in the industry for this and I can't believe that there is not an indie cinema distributor. I can understand that if the indie filmmaker doesn't have money to pay for for the distributor that the distributor would have to believe the film will make money.

I think that the indie film industry, as a whole, is getting more and more popular.

Have you ever thought about renting a screen and promoting the film yourself. I'm sory that I haven't read this entire thread, but I know that's an option at a theater here. They will rent one of their big screens for $5000 for the day or maybe it's 2 days. There will need to be a lot of butts in seats to cover that bill! AND that's just 1 theater :( so that may not be what you want. There is a good point though, perhaps you can interview the movie goers and get their thoughts as they exit. I've seen that done before.

But are there theater distributors that cater to indie films?
 
Indie cinemas!

Like I've mentioned before, there's a Toronto cinema with the works- it's own newsletter, listings in all major newspapers, etc.

For a weeknight prices are around $650 a screening. Weekends go as high as $900. Sundays are cheaper.
That's not too bad- especially for an 850 seat venue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top