• You are welcome to promote here, but members are also welcome to reply with their opinions.

Indie film business is dead then fried chicken

You will always suffer for your art. The minute you stop suffering, it isn't art anymore.
 
In the 1950's many smart, experienced, knowledgeable business people
said that people would stop going to the theaters because of TV.

Mike Curtis says the indie business has always been tough and risky but it's
MORE tough and risky now.

When Bob Shaye was starting New Line Cinema in the 1970's he said the indie
business has always been tough and risky, but it more tough and risky now. And
that was in the 1970's.

Shaye was right.

Curtis is right.

And in 2020 someone is going to write that the indie business has been
tough and risky since 2009 but it's more tough and risky now.
 
I don't pretend to know everything, but these were some of my thoughts on this article...


First of all: there IS no business model for indie film. That's why we can get away with murder and do whatever we want and then go about financing our films in whatever way possible.

I agree with the Sundance comment. Chances are you won't get into Sundance anyway, right? So if you have a brain in your head, Sundance has to be something you do IN ADDITION to everything else you do to make money or raise funds because no one gets into Sundance.

How many indie filmmakers REALLY want a car chase? I'm asking, I don't know. But I will say that there weren't that many car chases in GARDEN STATE.

About the music videos: have you seen music videos lately? They are very involved, they are very good artistically and filmatically (sp) and if you are doing well, you are making a living. What does commercial success mean? Recognition and making a living, right?

Making a movie is HARD! Wahhh! Well, DUH! That is why so few people do it. Making a movie has alot to do with artistic expression for those of us who are doing it with no money. I personally like telling stories even if for right now its someone else's story.(docs) Hollywood will always make the great big blockbuster and Oscar contenders. But when, however, was the last time you heard someone say that the latest Oscar winner was their favorite movie? I don't know, I'm asking. All I know is Reservoir Dogs didn't win an Oscar.

The problem with the networks is that they are offering CRAP. Everything really good is on cable or pay tv.

"Only the 100M films will have any chance of success," Uh, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, JUNO. I realize that's just two, but I'm just saying...

I don't think the days of support-the-arts investing is over, but I do think that for right now, with the economy as it is, the tide is out...

Hollywood has been the model for so long, maybe there is room for another model. Maybe not as splashy, maybe a little more cozy. Art for arts sake is still a worthy endeavor and anyone pursuing it has got to know the path will be lean...at least initially... You don't go into filmmaking to make it big in business. You go into it as an artistic endeavor and hope that you can make a living from it.

People will go see indie content. That's where the envelope is being pushed. And with all the film fests cropping up, I think there is proof that people will go see indie content. Indie filmmakers are like Beat Poets in the 60's. Nobody's really listening, nobody knows what we're talking about, right up until someone hits the big time.


Zensteve said:
The pic of that fried chicken made me hungry. :)

Best part of the article, tbh.
Click to expand...

...mmmm, chicken.....
 
I couldn't finish the whole article. I got sick and tired of reading all his crying and whining, and making up excuses to NOT be a film maker. It would have been a better article if he wrote about the challenges and how he overcame them, but it's quite clear he's simply a quitter. If Indie film making was easy, wouldn't everyone be doing it-successfully? I think that's what attracts me the most to working with Indie film makers. Unlike being bound by studio executives to change your script here and there, being able to fund your own project gives you the freedom to do whatever the hell you want. It's your art. Not all studio movies are Blockbusters either!! In fact, most do not make a sizeable return, from what I've read. So, I think everything he mentions applies just as equally towards the major studios, the only difference is, if a film flops, the studio is out a little money. If an Indie film flops, the film maker is probably out of everything, cash, resources, actors, etc. His complaints about "pirating" is really only an issue on the overpriced products from big label companies. Metallica has an issue with pirating because they make money everywhere between the music, tours, and merchandise, whereas Barry Manilow never had a problem with it but still draws a large crowd of middle aged women who would do anything to spend a night with him, trust me, I have an aunt who to this day would give up her first born to be with that guy for a night. I seriously doubt an Indie film will be bootlegged, at least not unless it becomes a big hit, but then in that case who cares? It's free adverstising for the producer and isn't getting your work and your name known the important thing? Plus, if it becomes successful enough for people to WANT to bootleg, then the money spent has already earned the producer great rewards.
I believe I've read some articles recently that say the exact opposite of what his main point is, the articles I've read say that we're about to see a boom in the Indie film genre. Man, I hope so.
I'd love to work with an Indie film maker just for the challenge, adventure and creative freedom. Just my thoughts.....
 
EvsFX08 as you said
I believe I've read some articles recently that say the exact opposite of what his main point is, the articles I've read say that we're about to see a boom in the Indie film genre.
Click to expand...

can i have the links of those articles please...
 
Spinner Thanks for your thoughts...i got more motivated from the reply......and Zensteve even i was first attracted towards the chicken..and then started reading the article but left it in the mid because it was unmotivational and as mentioned it looked like the man was crying. I personally think the main difference between indie filmmakers and studios etc is that general public knows there will be always something different in the indie movie though it might not be of interest but a different perspective or an unusual thing will be surely present.

By the way forgot to say thanks to the GURU "Directorik" also for motivating us by his post.
 
Last edited:
In response to the original article, it smacks of that moment that everyone goes through in every career (relevantly especially filmmaking or other high-glamor high-risk high-reward careers), when after a few (or ten) years of trying and learning, it becomes obvious that it just isn't going to come without a LOT of hard work and a LOT of luck.

There's a lot of topics in the article, and basically as others have said, they are EXCUSES for not filmmaking.

Those are the rules of the game. The rules change constantly. You have to want to make films enough that you don't care whether the rules change or the world goes into an economic funk. It is the artist passion that would help you persevere, not intellectual mavericking.

spinner said:
I agree with the Sundance comment. Chances are you won't get into Sundance anyway, right? So if you have a brain in your head, Sundance has to be something you do IN ADDITION to everything else you do to make money or raise funds because no one gets into Sundance.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. Forget about Sundance or Slamdance. I mean still enter because its not that much money but I would not hold out a hope in hell of getting in. I think they got 9000 submissions this year. They play less than 200. Do the math. Besides, a festival run should not be the only and primary form of distribution or publicity for your film anyway.

How many indie filmmakers REALLY want a car chase? I'm asking, I don't know. But I will say that there weren't that many car chases in GARDEN STATE.
Click to expand...

Its comparing apples to oranges. The comparison is not fair because Garden State is a drama / romance /coming-of-age film, not an action thriller. That said, if you note there are several shots on the motorcycle and other exterior locations where the producers had to pull a permit to film there, which means insurance, EMT, police, etc... whatever New Jersey requires.

About the music videos: have you seen music videos lately? They are very involved, they are very good artistically and filmatically (sp) and if you are doing well, you are making a living. What does commercial success mean? Recognition and making a living, right?
Click to expand...

This ties in right with the whole piracy issue. I am very opinionated on this issue.

Lets look at why people make music videos: To sell music.

When the ability to use music videos on MTV or VH1 declines because people pirate the music in ever-rising basis, the amount producers will spend to make a music video diminishes. Its a ROI thing.

Piracy is rampant, and starting now and continuing into the future those that directly pirate or do not condemn their friends from doing it will see their own abilities to make a career out of making direct-to-end-user videos diminishing whether that is Music Videos, instructional movies, or indie features, and the market will begin to evaporate before their very eyes. The same people that 8 years ago were sitting in their room downloading movies from KaZaa or whatever are now protesting the fact that the DVD market is insecure and piracy is rampant. Accept some blame. The generation that this applies to mostly loves to throw blame around and point fingers. Well start accepting some for what you've done.

Theres so much to this issue that there's no way we're going to cover it all here. We, as a society, need to realize how bad piracy is. It means our careers of moviemaking are severely diminished if not eliminated because of how badly it hits the business model.

And so we need to act on it and find out how we can deal with this so that people still feel like they get a good value for what they pay for, and producers aren't being ripped off.

Making a movie is HARD! Wahhh! Well, DUH! That is why so few people do it. Making a movie has alot to do with artistic expression for those of us who are doing it with no money. I personally like telling stories even if for right now its someone else's story.(docs) Hollywood will always make the great big blockbuster and Oscar contenders. But when, however, was the last time you heard someone say that the latest Oscar winner was their favorite movie? I don't know, I'm asking. All I know is Reservoir Dogs didn't win an Oscar.
Click to expand...

Movie making is easy. Making watchable, enjoyable, buzzable movies is VERY difficult. Some producers may say its not that tough but if you watch how hard they work, the fact is they're just used to it and they've been doing it for awhile.

I generally agree that many of the Oscar films are well chosen, but in the limited circle of the Academy related films plus the occasional others. Not in the general scope of the best overall movie of the year, thats not elitist enough for Oscar.

The problem with the networks is that they are offering CRAP. Everything really good is on cable or pay tv.
Click to expand...

Network TV is mostly crap, but you have to eventually come to the conclusion that that crap is what gets 12-28 year olds to watch, which is who advertisers are selling to, and thats how free network TV exists, is based off of their viewerbase. Thats why you see ever increasing numbers of ethnically focused programming, is because their viewership numbers are on the rise and have been for some time. Those people have a lot of consumer dollars to spend and thats who the advertisers are after.

Sure CableTV offers more promise but to be honest, most CableTV is crap too. What station can I turn on to watch high quality independent films? IFC? sure if I want violent sex-laden films. Sundance Channel? Sure if I want to pay $80 a month for the premium movie package on DISH. There WAS a filmfestival channel that was part of Voom. Voom is dead now. Its all commercially supported, so it all comes down to what do the sponsors want to pay for, and thats what cable TV has become.

People will go see indie content. That's where the envelope is being pushed. And with all the film fests cropping up, I think there is proof that people will go see indie content. Indie filmmakers are like Beat Poets in the 60's. Nobody's really listening, nobody knows what we're talking about, right up until someone hits the big time.
Click to expand...

Knowing about the inside circles of film festivals, I can tell you that almost every festival faces low turnout at their fests. There is no correlation to how many festivals there are vs. how much attendance there is. The reason big fests have better attendance is they have more advertising money because they've been around a lot longer and they are better supported through grants and donations. Still though, if you consider the amount of money that is spent to attract the audiences that fests do, film festivals are HIGHLY UNPROFITABLE if you use ticket sale revenues as the barometer.

For instance, many film festivals have budgets of nearly a million or over one million dollars. Their ticket sales may extend into the hundreds of thousands. Therefore I say do not use film festivals as a barometer of general interest in independent films.

There are two ways to make an independent film an out-of-character profitable success: 1) include enough marketable components that the film can find a large enough audience that it stands a high chance of making three times its budget during its short term shelf life. 2) Make a film that is so original and yet still highly enjoyable that it almost creates its own genre, or falls into a niche where there is high demand but it is very difficult to produce a high quality picture - pretty much every poster-boy indie film in the last 20 years falls under this category. Blair witch, Open Water, Napoleon Dynamite, Super-size Me, Fahrenheit 911, Clerks, Primer, Sex-Lies, Brothers McMullen, etc. all fall under this.

Also, in each case, none of the filmmakers in their wildest dreams expected the level of success they saw. Sure they were all excited about their pictures, but ultimately they had no idea they would become what they did. Its also important to note that most filmmakers do not reap much of the success of their hit films, rather they saw much of their financial success through subsequent multi-picture deals. Most get almost entirely cut out of the post-distribution profits, because they are not DGA, they do not have good legal advice, and most are desperate to appease their investors and cast and crew (who many times defer their salaries to appear in these ultra-low-budget flicks).

To put a further downer on everything mentioned here: Its time we're honest - In terms of quality my home theater is about as good as what I get from a cinema - surround sound - a 10' screen, hi-def projection, dvd-upscaling etc. What incentive, beyond my social connection, do I have for going to watch a movie in a cinema?

But ultimately, there is one underlying thing... I have stories to tell. And If I tell them great, and I am happy with them, whether everyone in the world wants to see them or I make a lot of money from them, it doesn't matter. If thats the trade off for getting to make the movies I want to make, I can accept that. Do I believe that at some point I will hit some sort of success if I do a great job? Yeah. But if I don't, I still have these stories to tell.
 
Life is suffering, indie. If life ain't suffering, it ain't art.... just business. Ugh.

Use your budget's poverty to instead focus on storytelling and what's important.

Hollywood puts out a shit-movie a month- Deathrace 2008, anyone? They just had a marketing budget and some names involved. So really, even shit sells if you put it in a nice box...

So MAKE a name for yourselves - USE the pirates to build an audience. Find the niches that can kickstart you into the local news.

Start a website, give your early work out free.

Be a nuisance in people's lives until they watch your flick- then if they like it, they'll be a nuisance in yours. Then get their credit card numbers and you've got a fan. :)

There's more than one way to kill a cat.

The butterfly effect: in a world that APPEARS deterministic, minute changes multiplied exponentially over time can create chaos in the system and change predicated outcomes. Become a "chaotic surgeon" and make tiny incisions where you can.

Sound and Video are both simply subatomic vibrational frequencies, as are the very atoms that make up our bodies- everything we know of is simply a combination of waves and particles. Mass, when it reaches light speed, becomes energy. Energy, when falling below light speed becomes mass because of the vibrational properties of the space-time continuum.

So really, you start off as a chunk of inert mass in life, and as you pick up speed you begin to vibrate at higher frequencies until you become pure energy....

People expect to go from the sound barrier to the light barrier AT light speed. Sure that could happen, but usually results in unstable energy- the mass you pick up along the way to light speed helps you determine your course. Just watch out for those chaotic exponents.

Maybe that's a pseudo-scientific way of saying "deal with it, biatches!"

And if all else fails, blame the economy.

YEAH- I can see the headlines now:

INDIE FILMMAKING INDUSTRY PETITIONS GOVERNMENT FOR $12B BAILOUT

:cool:
 
Piracy is rampant, and starting now and continuing into the future those that directly pirate or do not condemn their friends from doing it will see their own abilities to make a career out of making direct-to-end-user videos diminishing whether that is Music Videos, instructional movies, or indie features, and the market will begin to evaporate before their very eyes. The same people that 8 years ago were sitting in their room downloading movies from KaZaa or whatever are now protesting the fact that the DVD market is insecure and piracy is rampant. Accept some blame. The generation that this applies to mostly loves to throw blame around and point fingers. Well start accepting some for what you've done.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the market is simply responding to the lack of innovation in distribution and poorly marketed products.

Top 100 Torrents of Movies as seen on Pirate Bay: http://thepiratebay.org/top/201

About 90% of those movies I've heard of and are Hollywood studio fare that STILL turned profit (ie. Dark Knight, Iron Man, etc). The other 10% are either foreign films, films I've never heard of, or films I've only heard of because of my connections to the festival circuit.

The TOP movie right now however, "Passengers" with Anne Hatheway... I've never heard of it before... and it has 11683 people SEEDING the movie. Interesting.... Why is a movie I've never heard of the #1 pirated film?

According to Wikipedia: "As of December 2008, the film grossed total of $1,996,506 which comprised of $292,437 in domestic location and $1,704,069 in overseas location.[1]" "Widest Release: 125 theaters"

Looks like a flop. Let's find out what went wrong.... let's do some math.

Assuming the 125 theaters is for domestic release, that's $292.437 dived by 125: $2339.50 per theater over the 2 week period it was in theaters (actually: (125 theaters, $1,380 average) according to box office mojo). Divided by 14 days, that's $167.11 / day per, per theater. Barely covers the manager's salary. And considering the movie made more than half of it's domestic intake in opening weekend, that means for the other 12 or so days of it's release the theaters were probably pretty bare. Why 125? Why haven't I heard of this movie? Why is it #1 on Pirate Bay?

The Sad Part:
Budget: $25 million

The Sadder Part:
Plot: Complete rip off of the sixth sense (spoiler: she is treating passengers from an airplane crash until she finds out she and all of them are dead, oooh).

So now that we've collected all this data, what's the problem here? We need some data to compare this to.

Well, who produced this?

Mandate Pictures- the same people who brought us such classic "indie fare" as Juno, the Harold and Kumar pictures, 30 Days of Night and Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist.

So let's look at another flick of theirs- Nick and Nora. I saw this at TIFF with an intro from the Director and LOVED the flick. Great original date movie with a quirky feel, brilliant cast and awesome writing.

Here's their stats:

Domestic: $31,487,293
Opening Weekend: $11,311,751
(2,421 theaters, $4,672 average)
In Release: 45 days / 6.4 weeks

And most importantly: Production Budget: $10 million

And I had heard of this- in fact, there were little "Follow the white rabbit" stencils all over the sidewalks in Toronto, plus posters EVERYWHERE. Keep 2,421 THEATERS in mind, compared to 125.

So the next question is, on Pirate Bay, how many seeds?

Well, it's NOT EVEN ON PIRATE BAY. In fact, on ISOHUNT, the highest number of seeds was 72.

72.

---------

So what does this tell me?
How do these numbers make sense?

Well- on one hand there's an unoriginal, practically unmarketed movie with Anne Hathaway with a production budget of 25 Million that was released in only 125 theaters and is the top pirated movie right now.... and from the SAME studio, we have a $10 Million movie with Michael Cera that tripled it's budget in it's theatrical release over the 2,421 THEATERS and has practically nothing in the pirate channels.

Thus, I would conclude the problem is:

Films that get pirated are ones where the marketing team could not build VALUE or ACCESSIBILITY into their products.

And therein lies the rub... the "free market" looks at Passengers and says "WTF is this?", does a few google searches, see's the mixed reviews and recycled plot, plus it's only playing in major cities... and decides it's not worth paying for / Driving 6 hours to see. These people, the studio calls "potential revenue lost", but in reality, if they couldn't get the movie for free online, they simply would not have watched it.

On the other hand, the free market sees posters and trailers and buzz and good reviews for Nick and Norah's movie and decides "This looks worth my money", and it's playing in a theater near them, so that makes it easy. Familiarity and Accessibility, my friends.

-------------

So will we, as indie filmmakers continue to blame pirates like the banks blame the economy for their woes?

What's going on here?

1) a $25 Mill budget versus a $10 Mill budget...
2) A non-existent marketing campaign versus a smart, saavy grassroots campaign
3) A non-original plot versus a fresh and original (albeit Juno-like in style) plotline
4) A poorly distributed picture versus a widely available one.

Do you see a pattern here? Or will we blame the pirate for the fall of Passengers?

So why do people pirate then?

1) No value has been built into the product.
2) The product is hard to get / not available

And that's the KEY.

Instead of griping and moaning (tell yer friends not to pirate or you'll rat them out to some federal agency like they did in the McCarthy era) - FIGURE OUT the WHY!?!?!?! and then fix it.

Now you know- it's a marketing and distribution problem.

If the film was available online for $5 a view, if the film had been marketed more effectively, to the right markets, at the right time... if the budget costs had been reduced, if the script had been more original...

If, if, if, if, if....

If you don't like the pirates, become a ninja! Make movies that people perceive VALUE in, that are ACCESSIBLE and ORIGINAL and spend as little as possible making that movie... and you'll be a winner!

The problem is that people have been tricked by trailers and slick marketing in the past- the consumer is smart now, the consumer has tools to RESEARCH things before they commit money. So be smarter.

People like Kevin Smith, Tarantino... these guys build value into their projects from the screenplay up. They build loyal fan bases. They produce fresh and interesting concepts.

---

Let's turn the spotlight on me for a second... we did a feature: Macbeth 3000: This time, it's personal.

Geoff cut a GREAT trailer for the film... the actual movie itself has it's moments but overall is pretty bad.. I mean- Shakespeare meets Bond done by High School kids from Canada??? What do you expect?

But the trailer got us into the Youngcuts Film Festival (and THEY called US), it was shown on CBC twice and Razor channel once to a national audience. The trailer won an award at Youngcuts.

And to this day I get the occasional email request from people as far away as Australia, Louisiana, Oregon, Austria, UK requesting a copy of the DVD.

Just 2 weeks back some troll went on youtube and posted on the trailer's page "YOU PEOPLE SAID THIS WOULD BE COMING SOON 3 YEARS AGO, WHEN CAN I GET THIS???!?!?!"

And I did put out a torrent a year ago, but couldn't get enough seeds... cause let's face it, there ain't THAT much interest in it.

So since our premier in 2005 the movie has sat there... stalled talks with online distributors that can never get up and running... and just this week I've determined myself to figure out how to properly encode this sucker and put it up on Youtube... why?

Because why should people pay for a product that has little value and no accessibility?

I'll put it on Youtube for one reason- not to give Macbeth 3000 Value... to give it accessibility... then, when people watch it for free, THE FILMMAKERS will have GAINED VALUE.

Thus- the "Pirate Market" provides accessibility in return for value. It is filling the void of the wealth of "streaming monetized content providers" out there that still don't have their act together.

With no budget for a marketing campaign or a 3,000+ theatrical release, you make your product available so it can get exposure... THEN, you can start building value into future products.

I believe this rule applies to studios as well. It's part of the "you have to spend money to make money" philosophy.

I admit to piracy (in moderation), and proudly.

If it weren't for pirated content, many of the bands and filmmakers I love (and spend money on today) I would have never found.

----

And on the last note, there was mention of a guy who did a documentary on FREE SOFTWARE and ended up griping because he couldn't make a profit on it.

I've heard of this guy, in his next project, he bottles AIR and tries to sell it outside the GM plant.

Fact is- filmmaking is a business AND an Art.

When either side of the equation SUCKS, both suffer.

The philosophical question on the art side is- what are people paying for? The right to "SEE" a movie, or the right to own a product or partake in an experience at a cinema?

The practical question on the business side is - which is easier and more profitable- building more value and accessibility into our products to provide more competition to piracy, or restricting the way people can see a product?

One day, if we went your way (and I know this sounds like a pinko-liberal rant) the only way we could ever see a movie was at a high-security zone, getting frisked and having to check out cellphone cams at the door. And still, piracy would be out there in some form or fashion, catering to those who just can't deal with the pricey bullshit, lines around the corner and advertising that practically rapes your brain.

On the other hand, if we retool and reinvent the distribution and marketing system (think what google did for web searches) I see a future where MORE movies can get out there and profit in a system of healthy competition that caters directly to the consumer. Piracy would still be there, as theft will always be there in reality, but it would be marginalized.

So there.

/rant
 
I never read long rants on messageboards.

For some reason I made an exception.

You make some excellent points, Spatula.
 
Your point about the increase in exposure a film would have from being pirated is marginal. The fact that you can download exact DVD copies and soon BluRay copies of pretty much any major release... not just a DiVX copy but the REAL DVD, means that those people will NOT turn into sales, although they may become aware of your movie.

The fact is, downloaders of pirated films justify their doing so because they want to make sure that what they buy is what they're going to enjoy. But that is contrary to the movie-watching culture, and in fact is detrimental to an individual filmmakers' cache as a whole.

You're not supposed to love every movie that you go and see. By the time it comes out on DVD its been reviewed on Rotten Tomatos enough that you have a pretty solid chance to know whether that movie is for you or not. That's part of the process. We make the same decision with every other physically un-duplicatable item, like hardware for our computers or clothes at the store. Reputation of a brand comes into play. Its how Kurosawa and Fellini and Truffaut and Allen become household names in America. Not because they have the largest P&A budget or the best special effects or the most pirated movies or the least. They have proven that their films, and their art and vision, means its worth a five or a ten to go see the latest one, even if it isn't your favorite. Its what sparks debate and discussion, what parts we liked or didn't like. How so-and-so's latest movie was garbage. Its what makes connoisseurs of movie goers.

Again, even the justification used for piracy could be looked at as having a direct negative impact on the industry just by the allowed shift in mindset to: I'll only buy what I'm guaranteed to love, because I've already seen it. That breaks the desire to discover and cherish latest releases.

It breaks the system. It says if a producer makes a film that isn't 10/10, you won't spend your money on it, and yet you get to watch and own it for free. That's not fair to the producer, nor anyone else involved in a movie that doesn't quite live up to your grand expectations.

But thats only 50% of the blame here. Yes, the REAL repercussions should be shared amongst those who illegally own and share movies. But beyond that, the industry as a whole needs to look at it as a system that is broken and needs to be reassessed. There's no copyright protection that could ever be designed that would keep me from being able to video in high definition a film playing on my high def TV. That concept means that although you can make it hard to copy in the digital domain you will NEVER stop people from being able to share the movie online.

The future consists of some kind of balance, whether it is a part of a movie you can download for free or offering a whole movie that can be downloaded for free based on advertising. But until those systems can be put in place, there is a giant gap here and the only ones who are winning are those who download whole movies for free and enjoy it only to decide to not purchase that movie.

And don't for a second think I'm saying the Box Office is dying or the DVD market is drying up. I'm saying the entire economics of the situation are changing rapidly, and don't be shocked to wake up and discover the person who is hurt the most by it in the long run are you and me.
 
WideShot said:
Your point about the increase in exposure a film would have from being pirated is marginal.

.
Click to expand...

It's still free advertising. You can spend thousands of dollars on an advertising/marketing/distribution plan and get a negative return for your dollar. Or, you can take the risk that people will pirate your movie (again, for the most part, people don't pirate movies that suck) and get exposure that way. Metallica never really suffered from piracy, people will still buy their albums. Angus can live to 150 years old and I'll always buy AC/DC albums, it's simply great music to me, but you never heard them bitch about pirating and their songs are used illegally and without permission all the time (go to any major sports event). George Lucas never suffered from pirated Star Wars movies either, people still went to the movie theaters and will buy the Star Wars box sets because of the quality of film and entertainment value. You will never get rid of piracy and we will never see a system that offers checks and balances on piracy, it's too widespread. I have to agree with Spatula, make better movies, and you'll make your money regardless. If you make a name for yourself and become a successful film maker, you have to accept the good, bad, and the ugly- piracy unfortunately, is part of the ugly. If people actually pirate your movie, it must have been a success. Ok, so you don't make money from the people who pirate, but how did the Pirates know about your film in the first place? People who paid to see it talked about it, then, some cheapskate decided to check it out, downloaded it and talked about it with people they know, those people either buy it, or pirate, .....the cycle continues, but the bottom line is, someone, somewhere, paid to see your movie, thought it was good, talked about it, and some low life thought it was good enough to pirate- at least people are watching it! I don't think Spatula's point is marginal, I think film makers simply need to marginalize piracy, in other words, someone pirated your film? OK, who cares? So you won't make money off of EVERYBODY who views your movie. Have you ever taken some french fries from a friend? Or taken a beer from a buddy? Ever bum a ride from a friend? Probably, but did McDonalds, Budweiser, or Ford make extra money from you? No, it's a marginal loss, someone bought it initially and someone else enjoyed it for free. Big deal. If you make a decent film, people will pay to see it, plain and simple. The idea that you're not supposed to love every movie you see, well, if I pay the outrageous prices of tickets and snacks for a family of 5 these days, it better be a good movie or I'm gonna be pissed that I wasted my money. I've also wasted money on music CD's because I heard a song on the radio I liked, but as it turns out, that was the only song I liked on the entire album! It's a risk these days, and people are tired of spending their money on crap, that's why they turn to pirating, although I don't condone it at all, I can understand why its done. But, like I said in my earlier thread, that's the difference in good movies and not so good movies- influencing people to go see a movie in the Theaters versus waiting for it to come out on NETFLIX, or worse, pirating it, at least I have to pay for NETFLIX. There's a lot of movies I watch from NETFLIX that I say, damn, I'm glad I didn't go see this in a theater! This sucked! I like Spatula's thread a lot, it was long, but it was worth reading in my opinion, it's about taking responsibility and making good movies and not whining about things you can't control, I've always been told to work hard, focus on the things you can control and it'll all work out. It's been working so far....
If your budget is limited but your ideas aren't, and your profit is low but your debt is high, you must be an Indie film maker.
 
SPATULA

you have given lot of important details...if i am not wrong the conclusion of your post was that any film whose marketing has been done with big budget and is available nearly in every cinema or atleast at many many.it has more chance of not getting pirated.

Is it so???
 
ad2478 said:
SPATULA

you have given lot of important details...if i am not wrong the conclusion of your post was that any film whose marketing has been done with big budget and is available nearly in every cinema or atleast at many many.it has more chance of not getting pirated.

Is it so???
Click to expand...

Firstly, sorry about the length of the post... I'm a 'free-thought-typer'. But glad to hear so many people actually read the darn thing, LOL!

Basically, you nailed my conclusion... although I admit you'd want to look at a larger data-set than I did to draw it up as a "fact".

The fact is, piracy evolved to fill a gap in the market through new technology that the studios don't want to get into until they can CONTROL it.

That's where Web 2.0 and Net Neutrality comes in. The major profiteers in the film industry would spend more money lobbying government to change the rules of the web before they spend money creating more accessible content that they can't control. They would prefer everyone posting videos and blogs on THEIR sites and seeing THEIR ads than allow "free websites" to prosper where they fail. Thus, if they get their way, places like "indietalk.com" would become "nbc.com/indietalk" and everyone would have to sign THEIR terms and agreements... limiting what content could be deemed "acceptable" and allowing them to control content through censorship.

It's a simple solution that is already in place around the web in different forms- slap TV/Web style ads onto videos and offer them for free, or offer "premium subscriptions" (like this website) for users who want higher quality. This site became "premiere only" for a while, but it was scrapped when posters started dropping off... why? Because they wanted to SEE the value of the product before committing to spending money on the website. The free option means ads and limited options, but allows people like me to not have to sacrifice our food budgets for the right to participate and give the site much more content, which equals more exposure, which means more new viewers, which means more potential revenue. Hell, even drug dealers usually offer the first sample free. Every movie I love ends up on my shelf after shelling out for them- and every person has a different taste in movies. So there's a market out there for everybody. But you can't have it all. They want it ALL. It's a struggle for control over the WHOLE market going on "up there", but it ends up STRANGLING the market... Look at how the writer's strike brought content production to a halt recently, because of the greed of people to want to control the WHOLE MARKET as if it were uniform, when in reality it is MANY MARKETS who want different things- differences that breed competition, which is what our whole free-market system is all about!

Anyway, (I'm ranting again, sorry folks) you got the point, but I thought some more data might be interesting to get the information out there... this is from the official MPAA report entitled "The Cost of Movie Piracy"
http://www.mpaa.org/leksummaryMPA revised.pdf

The major US motion picture studios lost in 2005 to piracy: $6.1 Billion
The Worldwide motion picture industry: $18.2 Billion
Percentage from "Internet Piracy" (downloading): 38%
Click to expand...

So only 1.3 Billion total for web downloading, in the US.

Domestic total percentage of market that piracy makes up in the USA: 20%
Click to expand...

So piracy is mainly prominent in foreign countries... downloading films online according to the MPAA's own research shows that torrents and the like only account for an estimated $918 Million in the US market, and we'll get to my problems with the "estimate" in a minute.

Piracy Highest in: China
Click to expand...
(90% of their film market)
Reason given: Lack of accessibility.. (elaborated below)

Potential Loss of MARKET (in order): China (90%), Russia (79%), Thailand, Hungary, Poland, Mexico, Taiwan, Spain, India, Italy (25%)
Click to expand...

But...

The Highest DOLLARS "Lost" in order: Mexico ($483 M), UK ($406 M), France, Russia, Spain, China, Japan, Italy, Germany, Thailand ($149 M)
Click to expand...

So it looks like the countries with the highest percentage of their market engaging in piracy are markets with lower dollar potential... and maybe they pirate because the capitalist-driven film INDUSTRY is completely ignoring or side-stepping these markets while chasing the bigger dollars elsewhere?

You know, I hear in countries where people starve to death because of famine there tends to be a rise in food-related thefts...

And the survey even determines the WHY:
1) The US motion picture industry's access to China is severely limited. China limits the number of foreign films allowed in theaters each year to 20, and imposes a number of restrictions on the distribution of home video products. By contrast, pirates operate unfettered and outside the law.

2) Mexico and the UK are free markets resulting in higher revenue for the US Motion Picture Industry.
Click to expand...

So basically, the consumers in the UK and Mexico have greater accessibility to the films and thus more money is made. Proof positive. Piracy is mostly a result of inaccessibility. Thing is, if they were stealing cable from our free radio waves, we wouldn't cry "PIRATE" if they dubbed an episode of I Love Raymond onto a VHS and had their friends over to watch.

But who ARE these pirates?

The typical worldwide pirate is 16-24 years old, male and lives in an urban area.
Click to expand...

So students, basically. Boys who go to class each day, work part-time jobs and spend their money on booze for the weekend parties. Then they meet a girl and take her to see a movie at the theaters. They pay to rent films, go to the cinema regularly and even get movies on a pay-per-basis on the TV. But the young man wishes he had the budget or the time to go see the latest flick so he can chat about it with his co-workers and spread the word, but sadly can't because his girlfriend doesn't like scary movies and rent and tuition is due. So he saves his money for the films that really excite him and downloads the ones he misses so he can stay current... every good film he downloads he ends up convincing two or three people to see it, but if there was no "pirate market" he would have just not seen it at all.

And that's my problem with the "estimate" of lost revenue.

With today's economy, where are all the 16-24 year old males living in urban (expensive) areas going to get the billions of dollars to pay for every single film that they see? Sure, some people abuse the system and download everything.... but most download shitty quality videos, evaluate and delete... and then if they liked, end up buying the DVD.

If these films were available for a $1 if you signed up for an account (creating future marketing potential), or for free with ads, or as promotional previews... then maybe you could take that demographic of 16-24 urban males and give them CONTENT THEY CAN ACCESS.

And on the other hand, it would also make it easier for Indie Filmmakers to reach larger audiences by offering content for free or cheap, and MONETIZED. The filmmaker can now profit on a film without going through the middle-men of distributors. The key on the filmmaking side of it is MARKETING. For whatever reasons you make a film (be it profit or art), you have to figure out how to create value to your product if you want to put it into the market. People know movies are entertainment and that they pay for entertainment, your job is to make sure that your product looks like entertainment. Don't worry about the market in China unless you're in China, really. Make a film for your OWN market. Figure out what that is, and then make a film for it. Then market it to that market, but most importantly- PROVIDE that product to the market. Accessibility and Value, baby.

So I've decided to figure out how to get Macbeth 3000 (our own feature film) onto Youtube for free... and I may have to download a program without paying for it to do so cause of our stupid DVD encoding. So sue me. I don't have $500 bucks handy for a one-stop pony.

Anyway, rant #2 over. So sorry about the wall of text. I can't control it- it's like a monster in me. Most screenplays I write are mulled over for months and then written in a matter of nights. Of course, I usually edit them down and cut all the rantings.... but time is a luxury I can't afford. Thus, sorry.

Ok, I'm shutting up now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top