Thinking about turning down studio distribution deal...

[Gratwick Films]

I recently finished my first film. A horror film entitled The Perfect House. We crowd funded the project and have gotten pretty lucky with people we've met along the way.

The success of the film and a little luck we've made connections in Hollywood that have us in direct contact with the decision makers of studios like Lionsgate and Universal. If we sell our movie we are most likely looking at a deal of 1-2 million. TOPS.

Which on the surface sounds great, but after all the people along the way get their taste there's not much left and more than likely no more coming no matter how good the film does.

I had planned on the self distribution route before we ever had the contacts so I am definitely not afraid of it. In fact I believe in it more than ever in light of Kevin Smith's speech at Sundance and Open letter at www.theredstatements.com stating his intentions with his new film.

I am thinking of spurning the distributors in favor of a planned VOD release date. Say October 1st and we spend the next 8 months doing screenings and independent film seminars/Q&A promoting the release date. Before we ever shot the film we received a ton of free press on many of the popular horror sites. With a finished project to show it should be even easier to get them on board for promoting our release.

Kevin Smith says he's determined to prove you can market with nothing more than social media, easy to say when you already used the system to create the fan base. I say it can be done by a total unknown making it real for everyone.

My question is this does anyone agree with me? And are you willing to support the cause?

 

[martay]

Do you know how many DVD's they manufactured or how many they expect to initially ship?

I don't have the numbers yet.

I was encouraged by them taking out a trade ad (front page inside cover) in Home Media Magazine for the Jan. 3rd issue.

-Martin

 

[dar]

Most of this thread is about stuff I know nothing about. I am a viewer, not a filmmaker. Gratwick, it was hard to watch the trailers for your film without some bias, because you really have insulted a lot of good people here. But I did try.

I don't get the hook; it may be in the film, but it's not in the trailer. From this trailer, I would probably watch this movie on netflix watch instantly when my queue was on the low side. I would not go out of my way to find it. And I do go out of my way to find horror films.

I didn't like Blair, but it had a hook. So did PA and Frozen. We watched them because they had an interesting premise, even if they didn't fully pull it off, they get a certain amount of respect because they tried to pull off something extreme.

So, just something to take into account. From someone who watches about 10 horror films a week, on average, I don't get what's new about this film that is going to make it go viral, which is what you seem to need if you're going to spend next to nothing on marketing and sell heavily via internet. It is true that the horror market is abysmal out there right now, with the remakes and sequel, so if you have something new to offer, there could be a huge groundswell. But it will have to show up in the trailer, or the press materials, and very quickly and explicitly.

Ok, I'm ready to get flamed!

 

[Uranium City]

Please note flame wars will not be tolerated. Perpetrators have been dealt with.

 

[ussinners]

I didn't like Blair, but it had a hook. So did PA

I've said this before, and I stick by it. You can make a hundred million dollars on a piece of shit if it's marketed correctly. But, you need the money to put into the marketing.

PA was okay at best. After about 20 minutes of the same thing, it got boring real fast.

If Blair Witch was not marketed as a documentary, would anyone have ever even watched it? No. It would have never found distribution, it wouldn't have been a hit. Because without the "documentary" lie, the movie sucks.

Maybe it's just me. But, I'd rather make an artistic movie that 1000 rabid fans would love, then a piece of shit that makes money because some suit tells me "This is the real thing". Great examples, most every garbage performer on the Grammy's last night. Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, seriously.

 

[directorik]

cks.

Maybe it's just me. But, I'd rather make an artistic movie that 1000 rabid fans would love, then a piece of shit that makes money because some suit tells me "This is the real thing".

I doubt it's just you.

Most people who do not make their sole living making movies
feel the way you do. I'd rather make a piece of shit that makes
200 million then make an artistic movie that 1000 rabid fans love.

 

[bhikkhu]

I'd rather make a piece of shit that makes
200 million then make an artistic movie that 1000 rabid fans love.

I'd make a piece of shit that makes 200 million, and then an artistic film that 1000 rabid fans love.

 

[ussinners]

I doubt it's just you.

Most people who do not make their sole living making movies
feel the way you do. I'd rather make a piece of shit that makes
200 million then make an artistic movie that 1000 rabid fans love.

This is how you make a living. There's a difference. You working behind the scenes or directing for money is like me in an office. We do it for the cash. I haven't read your bio. Do you conceive, write and direct movies that you know are going to suck, but have great marketing campaigns? If you do, I will certainly stay away from them.

Look at what the creators of Blair Witch have done since. Nothing noteworthy. That's because they suck. They have no talent. They're one hit wonder film makers. They're hit wasn't based on talent, it was based on marketing. They're very Madonna.

 

[Blade_Jones]

If absolutely huge companies with full government support and a fleet of lawyers find it impossible to keep their movies off the net, yours is going to be that much harder to keep off the net. Do you know the difference?

Actually little indie films are much much easier to essentially keep off of torrents.

In advance of the movie release you propegate some bogus "decoy" torrents. Have titles like "Festival Screener" and "Media promo copy". Then gradually release another 10 decoy torrents after the movie release. To minimize negative comments, your decoys should almost fool people into thinking it's the real deal. Have the REAL first 3 minutes of the movie, then maybe throw in some other crap that you can dig up, perhaps some behind the scenes footage -- anything but dead air, which can trigger bad feedback or a torrent moderator to remove it.

It's the big movies that become so viral that they can't be stopped. The moderators of PirateBay are actively DELETING the decoy work done by the film companies. Moderators never notice some indie film that nobody has heard of.

If and when a REAL torrent is posted, hopefully it will get buried in the decoys. If there's just one seeder you can report the Ipaddress to the ISP and they will send a threatening letter to the seeder. Eventually you can snuff out real torrents.

 

[directorik]

This is how you make a living. There's a difference. You working behind the scenes or directing for money is like me in an office. We do it for the cash.

Exactly my point.

I need to make a living. 1,000 rabid fans who adore my artistic
movie doesn’t allow me to continue making a living. But your
sentiment isn’t just you - it is held by many people. In a way
I envy you. It's all about the art.

I haven't read your bio. Do you conceive, write and direct movies that you know are going to suck, but have great marketing campaigns? If you do, I will certainly stay away from them.

I have. And I will again. I haven’t hit that $200,000,000 mark
(not even close) but I have earned a living doing what I love.

 

[PositiveFuture]

I'd make a piece of shit that makes 200 million, and then an artistic film that 1000 rabid fans love.

That's what I was thinking.

Stanley Kubrick remains one of the few filmmakers who satisfied the Hollywood box office, the action hungry cinema-goer, and the art crowd.

Adrenalin and Brains. It can be done. Does anyone know any other filmmakers who managed this?

 

[chilipie]

That's what I was thinking.

Stanley Kubrick remains one of the few filmmakers who satisfied the Hollywood box office, the action hungry cinema-goer, and the art crowd.

Adrenalin and Brains. It can be done. Does anyone know any other filmmakers who managed this?

I think Nolan sort of managed it with the Batman series and Inception… not to the extent of Kubrick, but the Batman films are positively cerebral compared to most superhero/action dross.

 

[PositiveFuture]

I haven't heard of Inception, I'll check it out...

 

[bhikkhu]

Stanley Kubrick remains one of the few filmmakers who satisfied the Hollywood box office, the action hungry cinema-goer, and the art crowd.

Well to a certain extent, yes; Kubrick certainly knew his craft, and compared to other box-office hits his films are/were extraordinarily deep, but compared to "art"-films his movies don't quite have the same "artistic" level, which is probably due to being somewhere between "Hollywood" and "art".
His major achievement, in my opinion, is that he made audience-friendly movies that tried to be more than just entertainment; which is very respectable (especially in times of sequels, adaptations and remakes).

 

[sonnyboo]

I'd make a piece of shit that makes 200 million, and then an artistic film that 1000 rabid fans love.

This is the "Scorsese Mode"....

Martin Scorsese has had a work ethic that he recommends to most indie filmmakers he talks to, which is "One for them, One for you...". He makes a Hollywood film, then his next film is an entirely personal film. He puts his heart and passion into both movies, but he works within the studio system, trying to appease all the masters that come with that, then turns around and makes a film for a lot less money where he maintains greater control (even Scorsese does NOT have complete autonomy on his own films).

GANGS OF NEW YORK was for himself, THE AVIATOR was for the studio, etc.

 

[Uranium City]

George Clooney follows a similar path...Oceans 11,12,13 etc to fund less crowd-pleasing fare like Goodnight, Goodluck and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.

 

[Nate North]

Second that

I guess you've already gotten a lot of good answers. I would say that you are ignoring the cash value of the deal itself.

Not the 2 mil, the actual cash value of being able to walk into any studio with your next film and say, I did my last picture with Lionsgate. If that option was available on ebay, what do you think it would go for? It seems like in your current situation this is likely the best return on your investment that you're going to get. It also paves the road for future projects and puts you on the map.

About the flipside. I haven't had the opportunity to see your film yet, but if it's something really fantastic, that might be a reason to consider holding onto the rights, or at least trying to drive up the price with the studio. A solid 2 star horror movie can pull 18 million bucks, but the catch is that without the studio's marketing connections, you will never see those numbers independently.

 

[martay]

being able to walk into any studio with your next film and say, I did my last picture with Lionsgate.

I really hope that has the cache I think it does.

As my current movie is with Lionsgate and I want to trade on that for miles if I can

-Martin

"Step Off" Available on DVD everywhere March 15th!!

 

[Scoopicman]

Damn, I just now read this whole thread......

Look at what the creators of Blair Witch have done since. Nothing noteworthy. That's because they suck. They have no talent. They're one hit wonder film makers.

No fluke. I thought the captured alien flick, ALTERED, was a hell of a lot of gory fun, and one of those guys (Eduardo Sanchez) made it.

You seem to believe you have the foreign markets all figured out. If you did you would know its not just ONE market that gives you a lump sum. Its this territory, that territory, and so on. You sell each one off individually. Maybe a small one you get 50k another you get 200k TOTAL, you can bring in a MILLION on foreign alone selling off the territories individually.

I think Sonnyboo knows what he's talking about, as he has actually sold multiple territories. Certainly, more than I have, but I'll post a pic, anyway.

So, who's your rep? Because I want to know why Japan and Thailand are offering me less than 5k per country, while they're offering you 50K. Maybe the high quality of your movie? Still, I know guys who would sell to 20 - 30+ countries and make $200,000 - 300,000 in pre-2008 times, but not since the 2008 recession hit (killing Hollywood Video and other large chains). Have you actually sold one, yet? Your estimates seem a little high.


I used to do the "promote the movie myself" thing, but that got costly and even though I was running 60 commercial packages on Cox Cable, doing print ads (like below), multiple radio and internet interviews, I wasn't moving enough product to profit.

Some profit finally came with the Lionsgate release. They put it out a week before Tom Cruise's WAR OF THE WORLDS and even hired the same V.O. guy from SyFy Channel. Sorry, about the segue, but notice the similarity with how both trailers start (planet, city aerials, same narrator).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2bEfPPRpgc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZbtkBydAEU


Funny to see my crappy little movie riding Spielberg's coattails.


Just so you know, I kept World rights. Lionsgate only got North America. Just a thought.... There is no one way to do a contract. They can only take what you give them and you should always stipulate cash up front, for example - 1/3rd within 48 hours of signing, the rest no later than a month before the street date. They can't release if a movie is in arbitration.

 

[martay]

Damn, I just now read this whole thread......

If you're just now reading you missed many posts that have been removed.

And I think the original poster has abandoned this thread and possibly the board.

-M

 

[sonnyboo]

the reasons

So, who's your rep? Because I want to know why Japan and Thailand are offering me less than 5k per country, while they're offering you 50K.

Japan bought it based solely on the 3.5 minute sample-scene we made for $50,000 - No name stars, not even a film made yet. That was in 2005. Everything has changed since then, especially in terms of what international and domestic buyers are paying for indie films. They have dropped exponentially because they are selling less units, as are everyone else.

The worldwide market for home video has been decimated by a multitude of factors.

1. NETFLIX. Netflix destroyed Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Retail rental stores accounted for many thoussands of DVD's being bought for indie films. Now with Netflix and even Blockbuster online, they only need less than 100 copies of an independent film to cover the whole country (and that's being generous, as they usually only need 20-25). People used to be able to sell several thousand units to the retail rental stores. Good bye revenue.

2. ONLINE RETAIL. Stores like Best Buy, Target, and the ultimate Walmart are no longer carrying indie titles in their physical locations. Instead, they buy a few copies, around 100 total for their dot com store instead. Selling just 5-10 copies for each store used to equate to tens of thousands of units sold, and that is now dropped by 1,000% or more.

3. Foreign countries can buy and distribute low budget features from their own countries, thanks to cheap HD and editing, no longer needing to dub into their own language and with other cost savings involved. The DV revolution strikes first and hardest at the low budget U.S. filmmakers.

Because of factors like these, it's incredibly unlikely anyone anywhere is getting a $1-$2 million dollar offer anymore. It is not an economic reality that they can make that much back in sales in today's home video market, nonetheless turn a profit from it. At least in my opinion, based solely on my experience and those I deal with.