Talks with a distributor.

[dr stilly]

Hi,

A smallish distributor wants to hold an exhibit for our film, all expenses paid, in front of cinema screen representatives (to see how many screens he can get our film in), however he gave us the impression that he doesn't want to sign a deal until the outcome of this screen-er.

My producer seems fine with this because it will be beneficial for the film but I am of the notion that we should get a commitment in writing before we move ahead with this screening.

Is this common practice for micro-budget films to wait?

Many thanks

DS

 

[mlesemann]

Do you see a down-side to what he wants to do?

 

[8salacious9]

Well this is beneficial to you also, if the film does really well. then potentially you could have the upper hand no?

 

[EuropeanDistributor]

Hi,

A smallish distributor wants to hold an exhibit for our film, all expenses paid, in front of cinema screen representatives (to see how many screens he can get our film in), however he gave us the impression that he doesn't want to sign a deal until the outcome of this screen-er.

My producer seems fine with this because it will be beneficial for the film but I am of the notion that we should get a commitment in writing before we move ahead with this screening.

Is this common practice for micro-budget films to wait?

Many thanks

DS

To answer your question, it is not very common for micro-budget movies to get released theatrically, even in limited releasing, so I have no experience in a situation like this.

However, I see no wrong with what that particular distributor is suggesting.

What would you want to have in writing before the screening?

As always, before you sign anything, get referrals, contact the producers of all recent movies the company has distributed in recent years and ask if they have been happy with them.

 

[dr stilly]

To answer your question, it is not very common for micro-budget movies to get released theatrically, even in limited releasing, so I have no experience in a situation like this.

However, I see no wrong with what that particular distributor is suggesting.

What would you want to have in writing before the screening?

As always, before you sign anything, get referrals, contact the producers of all recent movies the company has distributed in recent years and ask if they have been happy with them.

It's a great plan and I'm fully on board however I feel there should be a deal in place before this screening don't you agree?

 

[Morris]

As EuropeanDistributor stated, theatrical releases for micro budget are very limited. He wants to determine if there is a market for it before he can offer a deal. It would be a good experience for you getting the feedback from the representatives.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

It's a great plan and I'm fully on board however I feel there should be a deal in place before this screening don't you agree?

Not really. I am presuming the distributor wants to use this screening to gauge interest. I'm also presuming your film is at this stage in stereo and as films are never distributed theatrically in stereo the distributor is going to have to invest in a commercial quality 5.1 mix as well as cover the distribution and marketing costs. Not an inconsiderable cost or risk for a small distributor, so wanting to gauge interest seems like a sensible move before signing a potentially expensive/risky contract. In the meantime, you get a risk free screening of your film which costs you nothing and I can't see that you have much to loose but there could be quite a bit to gain, theatrical distribution for example.

G

 

[Cracker Funk]

Yeah, I don't really see the down-side in this. That's awesome, dude! Congrats, and I hope whichever path you choose works out in your favor.

 

[dr stilly]

There's no real downside, it's great to even be considered. It's just from what I see a distributor usually makes a formal commitment before moving forward. Whatever happens though, we're proud that our little movie has been received well.

 

[dr stilly]

After clearing some things up there's reason for my confusion. What is being offered is what's called a 'Service deal'. This means we use the distributor's infrastructure to release theatrically yet keep all our rights for a fee.

We have been given this as an option and depending on how many screens we can get, if it's not too many, this may be good for us. If after the exhibitor screening we want to do this or strike a percentage deal it's up to us. I think if we get many screens then the percentage deal is best for us. We'll see.

 

[Sweetie]

I do personally like the service deals. It does however rely more upon you to do everything else, but if you can handle the work, the upside is preferred. Assuming the commission is in the right ballpark for a service deal.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

What is being offered is what's called a 'Service deal'. This means we use the distributor's infrastructure to release theatrically yet keep all our rights for a fee.

Following on from my last post, I'm curious about how a "Service deal" works in practice. Baring in mind a bargain basement theatrical 5.1 mix will cost well into the 5 figures and to do it properly could easily cost into the six figures, who covers this cost? If it's the distributor, how do they recoup this cost (and make a profit) if the film is only released on a relatively few screens and then the rights return to you? If you have to cover this cost yourself before the distributor will distribute the film how do you raise the capital?

I've been involved with a few very low budget films, low budget by film industry standards rather than low budget as meant by most indietalkers. So my experience of theatrical features is limited to those where a commercial quality theatrical 5.1 mix has always been budgeted from the outset. I would like to gain some insight in to what happens in this type of situation.

G

 

[Sweetie]

I'm curious about how a "Service deal" works in practice.

A typical service deal doesn't involve the distributor investing any of their money, only their infrastructure for a flat fee or a flat percentage or a combination of both. It's a good deal for those who have enough capital to produce and promote but not the infrastructure to distribute.

That all being said, I suppose you could call whatever deal in place anything you want, so you could still call something that isn't technically a service deal and still call it a service deal.

And how to raise the capital? Investors, Your own wallet/Bank account, Gap loan, pre-sales and so on.

If you're talking about a film having the money to be able to afford the advertising cost to distribute, the costs of 5.1/Dolby isn't a big determining factor.

When you're talking about a tiny distribution going to a handful of cinemas, you're really talking about a vanity project and I don't see a project like that warranting spending 5 to 6 figures just to impress your friends if there is little chance for return on investment.

I believe the deal for The Phantom Menace was a service deal with Fox. I understand it was an agreed upon up front low 7 figure fee with no percentage, on top of that, the cinema taking zero or up to 10% of the box office for the first couple of weeks with a merchandising deal with Pepsi group paying enough essentially picking up the tab for the entire trilogy and advertising. Those are the business stories of legend and I have no idea if that story is true or not, though, there was huge value in the franchise before it got to that point. How to make a deal like this work for independents... That's something I'd like to discuss.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

When you're talking about a tiny distribution going to a handful of cinemas, you're really talking about a vanity project and I don't see a project like that warranting spending 5 to 6 figures just to impress your friends if there is little chance for return on investment.

This sort of scenario is essentially what I'm talking about. I've never heard of a film being distributed theatrically (even a very limited theatrical release) without at least a 5.1 mix but in this case I presume the initial exhibition screening of the film as described in the OP will somehow take place with a stereo mix. I presume that the potential distributor, if after the screening they decide to distribute the film, will then require the film maker to have a 5.1 mix made as a pre-condition of distribution? At that stage, I'm also presuming, the film maker has to decide if they can raise and subsequently get a return on the 5 or 6 figure sum required for the mix (plus marketing costs!) or refuse the distribution deal?

G

 

[dr stilly]

This sort of scenario is essentially what I'm talking about. I've never heard of a film being distributed theatrically (even a very limited theatrical release) without at least a 5.1 mix but in this case I presume the initial exhibition screening of the film as described in the OP will somehow take place with a stereo mix. I presume that the potential distributor, if after the screening they decide to distribute the film, will then require the film maker to have a 5.1 mix made as a pre-condition of distribution? At that stage, I'm also presuming, the film maker has to decide if they can raise and subsequently get a return on the 5 or 6 figure sum required for the mix (plus marketing costs!) or refuse the distribution deal?

G

I have asked about this and the reply was 'it's fine the way it is'. He told me none of the documentaries that he distributes have a 5.1 mix and for gritty fiction drama's the use of surround sound will do little to support the film. Because of it's documentary-like realism we can swing it I guess.

Plus he's only talking about getting us into a minimum of 6 screens so that then he can get us on TV on demand like FilmFlex and Virgin on demand which increases are distribution revenues considerably. He did say, however that the big issue is if the exhibitors offer us over 50 screens or more, then he said we'll have to invest alot more money for the release and maybe even a 5.1 sound-mix, I don't know.

 

[Sweetie]

I've never heard of a film being distributed theatrically (even a very limited theatrical release) without at least a 5.1 mix but in this case I presume the initial exhibition screening of the film as described in the OP will somehow take place with a stereo mix.

There is at least one cinema in my area that I'm aware of (there are likely to be more) that can project from a Bluray that does 4 wall deals with local producers to showcase their movies. It is a small cinema, with two screens. One being able to project in 35mm film, the other projector being digital able to project from the Bluray and I'd assume DCP. While I'm far from an expert of what are the sound minimums to show a movie in this case, I'm sure a lot of the movies that have been showcased have only had stereo mixes, maybe a 3.0 mix at most. Hell, I've recently heard of a local movie with a budget of under 2k hitting a local cinema that was recorded using the camera microphone. What's the bet they didn't invest in a 5.1 mix?

The practical side of things, I'd assume (doesn't necessarily mean it's correct) that other cinemas that accept 4 wall deals would also have a similar setup.

So the question probably would be, do all cinemas have a 5.1 mix as the minimum requirements for sound? If not, that'd reduce the cost/time required considerably. Releases that aren't wide don't need every cinema chain to be able to accept their movie.

 

[dr stilly]

Apparently Woody Allen mixes his films in mono only as a stylistic choice. Not sure if that's true or not.

I suspect that it depends on the film and it's release. If, for example, a low-budget sci-fi film wants wide theatrical release in multiplex cinema's then I would think a 5.1 mix would be required.

But if a kitchen-sink drama wants to get a limited screening in independent theatre's around chosen area's that could appreciate the genre then I would think a 2.1 mix could be enough as long as the quality is in keeping with the narrative.

 

[gorillaonabike]

If I may give you a tiny bit of knowledge from my tiny bit of experience, I looked up your movie (fantastic idea, if I may say so) and immediately recognised Kris from an unreleased short set mostly in a South London swimming pool a couple of years back. I think he has deleted all mention of shorts from his profile but I recognised him nonetheless. He was pretty good and the final DoP was Oscar nominated (the second one when the first one pulled out). Budget was about 12 grand from recollection.

The reason I mention this is because the swimming pool short was a self-contained part of a larger movie. The sound was not Dolby 5.1 but was played in a couple of cinemas and I have seen some strange, bizarre budget movies in cinemas where I am sure the sound was not recorded in 5.1. From recollection, the intention of the writer / director of the swimming pool short was just to secure a deal and then get more funding so the rest of the movie could be shot and the sound could be upgraded.

However, please don't take my word for it as, I don't know enough!

As an idea, I would suggest having a chat with the people down at 'Vue' as they own that particular cinema chain. They are based down at Chiswick over at the business park opposite Gunnersbury Station. I am pretty curious myself.

And congratulations on getting this far! I want to do the same!

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I have asked about this and the reply was 'it's fine the way it is'. He told me none of the documentaries that he distributes have a 5.1 mix and for gritty fiction drama's the use of surround sound will do little to support the film. Because of it's documentary-like realism we can swing it I guess.

What's in the surround speakers isn't the problem. The problem is the lack of a centre position with stereo. This has always been the problem and why stereo has never been a theatrical sound format. I explained the problem in this thread. Also, I'm not sure what documentaries the distributor is distributing. Even for lowly old TV, 5.1 audio is the delivery requirement these days for pretty much all the networks.

EDIT: It's common knowledge in theatrical circles that Stereo is the worst of all audio formats for theatrical playback (which is why it's not supported), after your last post though a re-think is required because 2.1 audio would be even worse! Fortunately though, even more than with 2 channel stereo, there is no way to distribute a 2.1 mix to a cinema!

There is at least one cinema in my area that I'm aware of (there are likely to be more) that can project from a Bluray that does 4 wall deals with local producers to showcase their movies. It is a small cinema, with two screens. One being able to project in 35mm film, the other projector being digital able to project from the Bluray and I'd assume DCP.

So the question probably would be, do all cinemas have a 5.1 mix as the minimum requirements for sound? If not, that'd reduce the cost/time required considerably. Releases that aren't wide don't need every cinema chain to be able to accept their movie.

35mm film has two optical audio channels so could in theory contain a 2 channel stereo mix but these two channels are always used to contain an LtRt (4.0) mix, so putting a 2 channel stereo mix on 35mm film is likely to cause problems, as will feeding a 2 channel stereo mix through a cinema sound system, as CrackerFunk discovered to his detriment and discussed in this thread. To avoid the inherent problem of stereo or of accidental decoding issues, the DCP specification requires a minimum of 3 channels of audio (L, C, R).

As 35mm film and DCP are the only viable distribution formats for theatrical release (and neither of them support 2 channel stereo) I don't see how a distributor could distribute anything with just a stereo sound mix, let alone would want to (baring in mind the first thread I linked to above). The exception I suppose, would be if the distributor had access to a network of cinemas like the one which Sweetie describes. But, the overwhelming majority of cinemas can only play 35mm film or DCP and the odd tiny place which figures out how to connect a BluRay player to their projection system is likely to exhibit the same problems which ruined Cracker's screening.

In practice, even for limited theatrical release, 5.1 has been the minimum requirement for about 15 years or so, while the bigger films on wide release have 7.1 mixes or use one of the new audio formats like Dolby Atmos. If a distributor is willing to try and theatrically distribute a film with just a stereo soundtrack they just probably don't know what they are doing! Unless, they have connections with those few cinemas who have jerry-rigged their systems to play stereo soundtracks and those cinemas have patrons who don't mind watching films where the sound only appears to be coming out of one speaker at the far edge of the screen.

G

 

[dr stilly]

After doing some reading I think a 3 channel mix (dialogue from centre) is the minimum requirement for DCP. I'll ask more questions and get back here.