If most films were made that cheap with that bad of picture and even worse, sound quality, and using ADR even, it would be rejected by most film festivals. However El Mariachi went big, and boosted off Robert Rodriguez's career? How is that his film was the exemption to the rules? Did the producers just have really good international connections to get it shown in theatrical releases all over the world or what?
How did El Mariachi get so big with such poor quality?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
How would you get a distro deal before shooting, if that's do-able?
So and indie level newcomer couldn't hire a producer to get him distribution, not even after shooting a couple of shorts at least?
Distribution is perhaps best thought of as the Holy Grail. A good way to get it is attach Tom Cruise to your film. Distribution typically means someone is going to do their best to put your project in front of eyeballs. That takes money. A lot of money.
So if you can't afford Tom Cruise, create some compelling content and take your chances. Ultimately, a great short film is something like a great spec script: it's a work sample that may lead to greener pastures, but the thing in and of itself is unlikely to make a single peso or garner some cool a$$ distro deal.
a hard response
Think of it like this. Distribution of a film is a business with nothing to do with art, so whether or not your film is "good", a subjective opinion, is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is, "will the movie sell?". I might hate Jerry Bruckheimer movies, but I sure as hell might invest in one because they make money.
Taking yourself out of the equation and looking at this from the outside, ask the hard questions
Why would someone pay money for your movie?
Does it have the name stars people like to pay to see? The general public that aren't filmmakers want to see actors they recognize. There is also branding, meaning when you have the aforementioned Tom Cruise, there is an expectation, and you can guarantee that the movie will at least be at a certain level.
Does it have the quality of special effects people have come to expect in today's movies? Remember, Joe Blow moviegoer doesn't know or care that you only had a few thousand dollars. They expect the movie to be on par with the $100 million movie they just rented (and based on some reviews, so do most indie filmmakers).
On a more base business level, has anything you've made thus far turned a profit? Has any movie you've written/produced/directed found an audience of over 1 million people? Where is your evidence that the movies you make will connect with the public?
Are there unbiased reviews of your work?
Have reputable film festivals endorsed your work by selecting them to play for their audiences? A film festival is not your friends and family giving you the obligatory compliments...it's an establishment and one that has shown to be tastemakers for popular indie movies with no name stars that get distribution.
Why should anyone take a chance with their money on someone's work with no track record?
What are you doing in making your movie for the distributors/investors or their interest as a business?
When you have solid, unimpeachable answers to these questions, then you'll be able to get distribution without having made the movie yet....
I don't mean to be harsh, but you might face a lot tougher questions from a real investor or producer or distributor. Get ready for it. Be prepared.
** EDIT **
Thinking about this more, I need to clarify - The questions about are specifically related to distribution and the business end of filmmaking. It is a harsher reality check because the business end of movies is harsh.
Think of it like this. Distribution of a film is a business with nothing to do with art, so whether or not your film is "good", a subjective opinion, is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is, "will the movie sell?". I might hate Jerry Bruckheimer movies, but I sure as hell might invest in one because they make money.
Taking yourself out of the equation and looking at this from the outside, ask the hard questions
Why would someone pay money for your movie?
Does it have the name stars people like to pay to see? The general public that aren't filmmakers want to see actors they recognize. There is also branding, meaning when you have the aforementioned Tom Cruise, there is an expectation, and you can guarantee that the movie will at least be at a certain level.
Does it have the quality of special effects people have come to expect in today's movies? Remember, Joe Blow moviegoer doesn't know or care that you only had a few thousand dollars. They expect the movie to be on par with the $100 million movie they just rented (and based on some reviews, so do most indie filmmakers).
On a more base business level, has anything you've made thus far turned a profit? Has any movie you've written/produced/directed found an audience of over 1 million people? Where is your evidence that the movies you make will connect with the public?
Are there unbiased reviews of your work?
Have reputable film festivals endorsed your work by selecting them to play for their audiences? A film festival is not your friends and family giving you the obligatory compliments...it's an establishment and one that has shown to be tastemakers for popular indie movies with no name stars that get distribution.
Why should anyone take a chance with their money on someone's work with no track record?
What are you doing in making your movie for the distributors/investors or their interest as a business?
When you have solid, unimpeachable answers to these questions, then you'll be able to get distribution without having made the movie yet....
I don't mean to be harsh, but you might face a lot tougher questions from a real investor or producer or distributor. Get ready for it. Be prepared.
** EDIT **
Thinking about this more, I need to clarify - The questions about are specifically related to distribution and the business end of filmmaking. It is a harsher reality check because the business end of movies is harsh.
Last edited:
You seem to misunderstand what a producer does. A producer does
not distribute a movie. You cannot pay a producer to distribute it
themselves. Read sonnyboo's post three more times - it's excellent.
The directors of El Mariachi and Paranormal Activity did not hire a
producer to distribute the movie. The producers of those two movies
produced the movies and then looked for distribution.
Hmm okay. Well a lot of people do seem to see movies for the writing and low budget execution. If all people preferred known actors, and special effects, then would be no indie market, or foreign film market in America. So it seems me to that producers could sell to the indie audience that prefers everything else other than known faces, and special effects. The same audience that made Paranormal Activity a hit.
You're talking about pre-arranging distro though and using that as a starting point. Sonnyboo's description states that without the higher end things (known actors, previous success) the only thing you can arrange is distribution of a finished project... which shows the indie film market, but needs the projects to be finished before being considered for distro.
Yeah that makes sense. There must be a lot of good indie films out there that needed to have more word of mouth to be successful.
Not all people prefer the name actors or special effects, but they are a vast minority. That decreases the odds of profitability. So, you addressed 2 questions, what about the rest?
Foreign films released tend to be with their own stars and known filmmakers in those countries, not complete unknowns. The distributors won't take a chance on an unknown filmmaker with a foreign language film unless it was a hit in their own country first. They are "proven" in their own country before getting tested here. That lowers the financial risk, although many foreign films simply do not translate to American audiences, so it is always risky.
Paranormal Activity may have been complete unknowns on the surface, but do the homework - Steven Spielberg discovered the movie, re-edited it and sold it to Paramount. That's the only reason the film got it's wider release.
So many beginning filmmakers focus on the five "indie" movies
in the past 15 years that made it big that they either ignore or
simply do not focus on the market. What does the market really
want? What do people actually pay to see? What do YOU pay to
see?
It's true, every so often a low budget independent film will hit it
big. This is what all too often drives new filmmakers. They focus
on the very rare exceptions. It's quite a dream and it's fun to think
about. The actual story of how these rare exceptions get so big
is usually lost in the hype.
If there was a formula: this + this + this = big hit, we all would do
that. When you look at what actually happened with the films from
"El Mariachi" to "Paranormal Activity" - how they actually
got a huge national (and worldwide) release a different story is revealed.
It can still happen - it will happen again. Right now there may be a
film in production or making the rounds that we will be talking about
in 2013. It might be one of ours.
But is that what we should be focusing on? Being the one in a million
exception.
in the past 15 years that made it big that they either ignore or
simply do not focus on the market. What does the market really
want? What do people actually pay to see? What do YOU pay to
see?
It's true, every so often a low budget independent film will hit it
big. This is what all too often drives new filmmakers. They focus
on the very rare exceptions. It's quite a dream and it's fun to think
about. The actual story of how these rare exceptions get so big
is usually lost in the hype.
If there was a formula: this + this + this = big hit, we all would do
that. When you look at what actually happened with the films from
"El Mariachi" to "Paranormal Activity" - how they actually
got a huge national (and worldwide) release a different story is revealed.
It can still happen - it will happen again. Right now there may be a
film in production or making the rounds that we will be talking about
in 2013. It might be one of ours.
But is that what we should be focusing on? Being the one in a million
exception.
It happens much more often than people give credit for. Some may not be in the trades, but in the last five years I can count at least five that had pretty great success, and none of them are Paranormal Activity.
The even harsher reality is that most independent/nano/micro-budget movies are not decent enough for mass consumption. So, yeah, the ratio may be right. One in ten thousand feature films gets distro. Go and compare that one with the others and it becomes pretty obvious very quickly why it happened.
There isn't any magic combo other than talent, taste, technical, and tenure. Without at least three of these being on the level then of course it's not going to fly.
We would get into the semantics of what "success" is defined as. A lot of films are "successful" but that word can mean almost anything and something different to each filmmaker and situation.
Success to me is pretty basic: break even and/or profit, go on to the next feature film or profitable endeavor.
Only three of the cases I can name have gone on to do that, it's even rarer than a great distribution deal indeed.
The last perk would be to get some sort of notoriety.
Only three of the cases I can name have gone on to do that, it's even rarer than a great distribution deal indeed.
The last perk would be to get some sort of notoriety.
Success, aside from the unquantifiable "fuzzy good feeling you have for a 'finished' job (even if it looks like cr@p)" can be measured as either "Based on Absolute Profit" or "Return on Investment", the latter probably being the more sane perspective to adopt in indie no-budget land.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php
Goto the end of this list:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/allbudgets.php
I'd cast a flinching jaundiced eye at all the "unknown" values for WWG, so taking only those with both budget and WWG it's a pretty spotty hit-or-miss record.
This is a very tough industry.
Half of everybody wants entertainment but they don't wish to pay much for it despite the other half of everybody producing product.
* * * *
http://vegasclick.com/gambling/houseedge.html
http://wizardofodds.com/houseedge
Close enough.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php
Goto the end of this list:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/allbudgets.php
I'd cast a flinching jaundiced eye at all the "unknown" values for WWG, so taking only those with both budget and WWG it's a pretty spotty hit-or-miss record.
This is a very tough industry.
Half of everybody wants entertainment but they don't wish to pay much for it despite the other half of everybody producing product.
* * * *
I was thinking slots.
http://vegasclick.com/gambling/houseedge.html
http://wizardofodds.com/houseedge
Close enough.
Last edited:
Not sure, but the budget of El Mariachi is a very misunderstood animal. He shot it for about 10K, but then the studio put 10X that into turning it into something they could actually release (by doing things like re-recording all the sound), then they put 25X or 50X that into promotion. So RR "$10,000 movie" is actually about a $750,000 movie (or more).
He is very talented, and so unbelievably lucky it almost defies belief. The RR story is roughly equivalent to a guy getting struck by lightning while he was buying a winning powerball ticket.
Not being argumentative here, but it's not really a lottery. A lottery is all chance and out of your control. Filmmaking is not all chance and it certainly is mostly in your control if you play your cards right.
I feel like people call it luck because there's no other way to get around the fact that some people will be able to do this, and some just will not.
And, the money that anyone put into it beyond what he did is kind of irrelevant. He got the movie to where it was first, got his own deal, moved on to another project. If you're talking about getting to that point, then the number afterward doesn't matter at all. If you're talking about selling the movie to an audience, then yeah.
I think we're all wondering how to get where he is, not how to get where the studio or distribution company are.
But that's where RR is.... at a studio like Dimension Films (because he quit the DGA over Sin City's credits, he can't really direct a film at any major studio, see PREDATORS where he could not direct, only produce).
The number of people making movies today versus 1991 is exponentially higher and the profitability of any feature film via distribution is substantially lower. The getting struck by lightening when buying the winning lottery ticket metaphor is apt.
The lottery aspect is getting the distribution and 3 picture development deal. Many people with a subjective amount of "talent", whatever that may be or whoever may believe that it exists in one person and not another - THAT is in the power of the few, the studios and distributors, to take those chances on someone.