how do bad movies make it on DVD/bluray/netflix?

[2001 Productions]

Actually, marketability comes first. The material can be the worst crapola in the world, but if it has enough marketable elements, people will tune in. Even if the viewer realizes 5 minutes into the thing what a load of excrement it is and shuts it off, the distributor has still rung up a sale.

Conversely, quality material that viewers truly enjoy will nevertheless be rejected by distributors if they can't see an obvious marketing strategy for it. Recognizable names in the cast is the big one, of course, followed by graphic elements such as gore, nudity, violence, explosions, sharks, etc.

I'm not blaming the distributors, they're just responding to the tendencies of the average consumer. It is frustrating, though.

 

[DeJager]

If you as a filmmaker want to do filmmaking as a living then you need to start treating it like a business and not like a passion/hobby. You want to get your film distributed? Make a movie that has a market; don't make a crappy drama that bores everybody to death and nobody wants to watch it. Once you establish yourself then you can take on those passion projects.

 

[2001 Productions]

If you as a filmmaker want to do filmmaking as a living then you need to start treating it like a business and not like a passion/hobby. You want to get your film distributed? Make a movie that has a market; don't make a crappy drama that bores everybody to death and nobody wants to watch it. Once you establish yourself then you can take on those passion projects.

Very true. Except I'm not even talking about "a crappy drama that bores everybody to death". I'm talking about movies that audiences really dig, but that don't have stars and/or enough gratuitous sex and violence to attract marketers.

My movie has creatures emerging from a river to snatch people, a tavern haunted by the ghosts of 19th Century prostitutes, a beautiful recluse who may or may not be a witch, underground tunnels, a mystery surrounding an old shipwreck, a man stabbed in the throat, and 3 scenes featuring female nudity. Sound boring to you? As for production quality, you can judge for yourself by these screen grabs.

That film was represented by one of the most respected producer's rep firms in Hollywood, who cut their standard fee by more than 60% because they believed in the film so much. But, it had no stars and - presumably - too much plot and not enough splat.


p.s. -- I apologize if this all sounds like sour grapes on my part...but that's probably what it is.

 

[Zensteve]

That film was represented by one of the most respected producer's rep firms in Hollywood, who cut their standard fee by more than 60% because they believed in the film so much.

Errm... how exactly does that work?

Totally off-topic, but what are you doing with your film, now that it hasn't found distribution at the level you like? Still shopping it around?

 

[mus]

If you as a filmmaker want to do filmmaking as a living then you need to start treating it like a business and not like a passion/hobby. You want to get your film distributed? Make a movie that has a market; don't make a crappy drama that bores everybody to death and nobody wants to watch it. Once you establish yourself then you can take on those passion projects.

Basically, if your movie doesn't have an ounce of entertainment value, it sucks... plain and simple. People will like different things in movies, there's nothing to predict there, but the best way to market it is to just have a good idea. I've noticed that most movies can SEEM interesting, but then turn out to be terrible and others can have the worst premise in the world, but still turn out to be one of the best movies ever made. Most critics seem to rate a movie based solely on its premise and plot synopsis, not on the actual content.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

It seems to me this thread is essentially the old chestnut of art verses business. Film is two largely different things, an art form and an industry. Art is about skill and quality and business is about profit. In other words, a distributable film has nothing to do with how good it is and everything to do with whether or not a business person sees some potential profit in it. Many, if not most, indie filmmakers approach making films artistically and are doomed to financial failure because they just don't get the philosophy of the film/TV industry and therefore fail to meet it's requirements.

Ask yourself these questions: 1. Is the best film ever made the most profitable? 2. Is the most profitable film ever made the greatest? 3. Is the worst film ever made also the least profitable?

In other words, how good you judge a film to be is not directly related to how much potential it has as a product. IMHO, indie filmmakers either need to stick to their art and not expect acceptance/income from the film/TV industry or they need to learn how to create cinematic/televisual products. The difference between making a successful product and creating a piece of art is potentially huge and is why you not only find so many disillusioned failed musicians, artists, writers and filmmakers but also quite a few disillusioned successful musicians, artists, writers and filmmakers!!

G

 

[Alcove Audio]

Folks like A.P.E. and I - who are not filmmakers but make our living inside the industry as artistic technicians - spend a great deal of time polishing turds. I'm sure that there are lots of color graders, CGI folks and the like who do the same. I've worked on "very good" films with horrible production values, terrible films with excellent production values and the whole mixed gamut in between.

my dad is watching some low budget movie about some ghetto gangster wannabes

Something attracted him to the flick; did you ask him what it was? Did he like it? And my only technical question is obvious - how was the sound?

The digital technological explosion, making technology unheard of 20 years ago available to anyone with a few hundred dollars, and the democratization of YouTube has led to a lowering of expectations. After constant exposure shaky cam cell phone footage it is no longer as objectionable as it once was. Not to mention that the crappy acting skills of celebutants and reality show morons have seriously lowered the expectations bar as far as actors are concerned.

So audiences have lower expectations from low/no/mini/micro budget films, with the possible exception of the sound quality; and even there, as long as they can easily understand the dialog that's all that seems to be important. They are not expecting Spielberg, but, then again, they're not paying for Spielberg either.

As was said before, maybe it was a bad film, but at least it was a finished bad film.

 

[Sweetie]

It seems to me this thread is essentially the old chestnut of art verses business. Film is two largely different things, an art form and an industry. Art is about skill and quality and business is about profit. In other words, a distributable film has nothing to do with how good it is and everything to do with whether or not a business person sees some potential profit in it. Many, if not most, indie filmmakers approach making films artistically and are doomed to financial failure because they just don't get the philosophy of the film/TV industry and therefore fail to meet it's requirements.

Yes, there is a difference between art and Show Business. To those people who are expecting to work in Show Business and be able to treat it like Art and be incredibly successful and rich are often going to have a miserable time doing so.

Ask yourself these questions: 1. Is the best film ever made the most profitable?

That question is also open to interpretation. In my opinion, no.

2. Is the most profitable film ever made the greatest?

Same as #1.

3. Is the worst film ever made also the least profitable?

Not even close. It's going to be a middle of the range film that was over invested that performed poorly. The worst film ever was unlikely to even get a budget to post a loss.

In other words, how good you judge a film to be is not directly related to how much potential it has as a product. IMHO, indie filmmakers either need to stick to their art and not expect acceptance/income from the film/TV industry or they need to learn how to create cinematic/televisual products. The difference between making a successful product and creating a piece of art is potentially huge and is why you not only find so many disillusioned failed musicians, artists, writers and filmmakers but also quite a few disillusioned successful musicians, artists, writers and filmmakers!!

Show Business is still a business. The main reason filmmakers cannot get financing for their movie is they're asking for money to make art or they have very little understanding of the business side of show business. When pitching an idea, how many filmmakers have the answer to "If your first plan of how we're going to see a return on our investment doesn't work, what is your backup plan to get us a return?"... Hell some wouldn't even get to that point... it'd be more like, "I don't see how we'd get a return on our investment." If you're not thinking like that, you're not in show business, you're in the con-man/gamboling business as you're looking to con someone out of their money (or gambol their money) to make your movie without any plan of return for your investors.

 

[harmonica44]

Very true. Except I'm not even talking about "a crappy drama that bores everybody to death". I'm talking about movies that audiences really dig, but that don't have stars and/or enough gratuitous sex and violence to attract marketers.

My movie has creatures emerging from a river to snatch people, a tavern haunted by the ghosts of 19th Century prostitutes, a beautiful recluse who may or may not be a witch, underground tunnels, a mystery surrounding an old shipwreck, a man stabbed in the throat, and 3 scenes featuring female nudity. Sound boring to you? As for production quality, you can judge for yourself by these screen grabs.

That film was represented by one of the most respected producer's rep firms in Hollywood, who cut their standard fee by more than 60% because they believed in the film so much. But, it had no stars and - presumably - too much plot and not enough splat.


p.s. -- I apologize if this all sounds like sour grapes on my part...but that's probably what it is.

This movie sounds like it could be good. By material coming first, I meant marketing material, not necessarily really great material. But how can you have too much plot and call it boring? Everyone likes The Dark Knight for example, and that movie wouldn't stop with the plot and just kept going and going.

As far as movies on netflix, where they recorded audio straight to the camera, which movies have done that? It would be interesting to see a movie like that.

 

[Alcove Audio]

As far as movies on netflix, where they recorded audio straight to the camera, which movies have done that? It would be interesting to see a movie like that.

Keep in mind that, ten years ago, one of the favorite indie cameras was the DVX-100, which had decent audio implementation.

 

[2001 Productions]

Errm... how exactly does that work?

Not sure if I completely understand your question, Steve, but the company, Circus Road Films, acts as both an agent for the film and an attorney to negotiate and finalize deals on the producer's behalf. The partners are all entertainment attorneys, and you're essentially paying their retainer.

I don't mind saying I was VERY skeptical about paying a rep up front, but my manager in L.A. called around and got nothing but rave reviews about them from A-list producers. They are very picky about the films they take on and do not like to fail because, as you know, Hollywood is a small town and they are very protective of their reputation. I also have personally heard from other indie producers who always use their services.

Nevertheless, I still balked at their fee, which was fairly steep (for me). My manager negotiated the reduction, which they agreed to make up on the back end, but only if they were able to sell the film, otherwise they're out the money. They sent it out to the 50 top distributors that they consider reputable.

Totally off-topic, but what are you doing with your film, now that it hasn't found distribution at the level you like? Still shopping it around?

I had a couple of offers for VOD only before signing with Circus Road, but I figured I had to try for the whole enchilada. Hindsight being 20/20, I should have just gone that route to begin with, I suppose. But then I would always wonder...

 

[2001 Productions]

But how can you have too much plot and call it boring? Everyone likes The Dark Knight for example, and that movie wouldn't stop with the plot and just kept going and going.

The movie isn't boring, but plot isn't necessarily marketable, no matter how good it is. Quality is of far, far less concern than marketability.

DK is not a good comparison, because it's loaded with marketable elements: a huge franchise character dating back decades, an enormously successful predecessor, A-list cast and director, and it's a studio movie. The movie would have gotten distribution if all Christian Bale did was pick his nose and beat up bad guys. The fact that it turned out to be so much more than that is just icing on the cake.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

By material coming first, I meant marketing material, not necessarily really great material. But how can you have too much plot and call it boring?

H44, the first statement I've quoted demonstrates you are thinking about film as a potential product but the second sentence demonstrates that in reality you are thinking purely as filmmaker, rather than like a manufacturer of cinematic products. Maybe that's what you want, which is fine but don't fool yourself into believing that you are being both. I'm probably giving the two sentences more weight than you intended but nevertheless, they serve as a good example:

Firstly, boredom occurs when not enough is happening to maintain interest OR when interest is lost because too much is going on which the audience either doesn't understand or can't relate to. So, too much plot is potentially just as bad as too little plot but in reality, too much plot, too little plot or somewhere in between is irrelevant. If the story is told well, it will always appear to have just the right amount of plot! I've said it before, it's the telling of the story which is important, not the story itself. The same story can be told by my grandmother and by a world class stand-up comedian, which is likely to be the more entertaining and the more commercially viable? Even a boring, mundane story can be fascinating if told by a gifted storyteller, just as a good story can be boring if told by a talentless storyteller. Indie filmmakers generally appear to be on a quest to find/develop the perfect plot/script but IMHO, a particularly good exercise to develop the real art of filmmaking (storytelling) would be to try making a good film from a bad plot! Again though, we are talking here about making "good" films, which is not necessarily the same as making good products. There are some who earn next to nothing from making decent films and others who earn a living from making poor films:

Depending on the distributor and where the film is being distributed, a mediocre or even a bad film can be a better product than a good film! For example, there are distribution channels (SyFy as an example) where the target audience expect a mediocre film. Sometimes the audience get a film better than they expect, sometimes they get a film worse than they expect and rarer still, they get a really good little film or a really terrible one. From this type of distributor's point of view, a terrible film might fit into their schedule if they can buy it dirt cheap, if it offers a good marketing opportunity (cheaply) and if it can easily be balanced with other mediocre and decent/good films in their schedule. A lot of (but not all) people will switch off a terrible film, which the channel can afford occasionally but of course they can't afford to loose it's audience permanently. Conversely, a really good film can also present difficulties, purely from the fact that realising the additional potential profit (and/or offsetting the likely higher purchase price) of a really good film will be more costly and therefore more economically risky. So, depending on the target audience and the films already purchased/scheduled for broadcast/distribution, a cheap, easily marketable bad film might represent a more appealing "product" to a particular distributor at a certain point in time!

G

 

[harmonica44]

By material I meant material that the audience would like, not GOOD material. Unfortunately. But yeah I saw a movie on cable the other night, and in the master shots, where they couldn't get a boom operator in the shot, they cut to sound that was recorded from the camera mic, which was too far away, and you could totally tell difference in the cut and the quality. But I guess they didn't think it was big enough to ruin the WHOLE movie of course.

Maybe people who have made good movies should sell them for cheaper prices though if they want to compete with distributors, or no?