Indie Boxoffice Down...
- Thread starter Unknown Screenwriter
- Start date
2007 didn't strike me as a good year, in terms of product.
One of the issues for indie films, is because they generally require an audience to work slightly harder, they have to be outstanding to make the grade. As we both know, outstanding scripts and concepts don't grow on trees.
What I do remember about 2007, is not getting that "Wow, I must go and see that" about any of the indies coming out of the States. As a result of which I ended up seeing a lot more world cinema, this year. Which actually was really nice.
At the same time, some really good films got buried in art house releases... which was a pity. So, Julie Delphy's rather lovely "Three Days In Paris" I discovered by accident, when it was obviously a film that could have done much better business, with a better push from the distributors.
One of the things that is getting quite scary about the business, these days, is how inept the industry has become at marketing films to the public. They understand how to sell a blockbuster... they've got a handle on a couple easy niche genres... but beyond that, they're actually worst at selling films and take fewer risks than companies did in the 1940's.
I know for a fact that there have been films made, in the last four years, that I as a customer would have liked to have seen, that I would have enjoyed... and yet, the industry is still unable to make a link between that product and me. In fact, chances are, no one will ever see those films.
For all the talk of internet marketing and new opportunities created by digital production, the biggest hurdle continues to be the conservative nature and lack of vision within distribution.
But, to be fair... I've been looking at this issue for ten years now and I still don't see where the gap in the distribution market is... or, rather I can see the gap, I just can't see how to exploit it (other than at a single project level).
My thinking for the past three years has been that an indie movie has to be more than a good concept, good script, good film... it also has to be a news event in its own right. The film has to be a story.
I'm certain that this is true regardless of how big the budget is, or who is in it.
It's only by exposure in the mainstream international news media, that a film generates enough interest, in order to secure an audience.
If you think back to Tarantino's first movie, what brought the audience's attention to the movie wasn't the cast, or even the story... it was the Madsen, ear being cut off, scene.
I know there is more to the overall story of the film's success than this... but, it seems to me that these days, the hook that draws an audience is often more important than the film itself. If you get it right, hook the audience in and then entertain them... then you're made... if you get it wrong, hook the audience in and don't entertain them (Blair Witch), then you sink without a trace.
That's my thoughts... although I've precious little evidence to back them up, they are just opinions.
One of the issues for indie films, is because they generally require an audience to work slightly harder, they have to be outstanding to make the grade. As we both know, outstanding scripts and concepts don't grow on trees.
What I do remember about 2007, is not getting that "Wow, I must go and see that" about any of the indies coming out of the States. As a result of which I ended up seeing a lot more world cinema, this year. Which actually was really nice.
At the same time, some really good films got buried in art house releases... which was a pity. So, Julie Delphy's rather lovely "Three Days In Paris" I discovered by accident, when it was obviously a film that could have done much better business, with a better push from the distributors.
One of the things that is getting quite scary about the business, these days, is how inept the industry has become at marketing films to the public. They understand how to sell a blockbuster... they've got a handle on a couple easy niche genres... but beyond that, they're actually worst at selling films and take fewer risks than companies did in the 1940's.
I know for a fact that there have been films made, in the last four years, that I as a customer would have liked to have seen, that I would have enjoyed... and yet, the industry is still unable to make a link between that product and me. In fact, chances are, no one will ever see those films.
For all the talk of internet marketing and new opportunities created by digital production, the biggest hurdle continues to be the conservative nature and lack of vision within distribution.
But, to be fair... I've been looking at this issue for ten years now and I still don't see where the gap in the distribution market is... or, rather I can see the gap, I just can't see how to exploit it (other than at a single project level).
My thinking for the past three years has been that an indie movie has to be more than a good concept, good script, good film... it also has to be a news event in its own right. The film has to be a story.
I'm certain that this is true regardless of how big the budget is, or who is in it.
It's only by exposure in the mainstream international news media, that a film generates enough interest, in order to secure an audience.
If you think back to Tarantino's first movie, what brought the audience's attention to the movie wasn't the cast, or even the story... it was the Madsen, ear being cut off, scene.
I know there is more to the overall story of the film's success than this... but, it seems to me that these days, the hook that draws an audience is often more important than the film itself. If you get it right, hook the audience in and then entertain them... then you're made... if you get it wrong, hook the audience in and don't entertain them (Blair Witch), then you sink without a trace.
That's my thoughts... although I've precious little evidence to back them up, they are just opinions.
Last edited: