> VOD Indie Film Distribution Exploration

rayw

rayw

Alright, with grrrrreat reluctance I'm beginning a new thread with my investigation notes about video-on-demand.
I wanted to just attach it to the other thread as a minor tangent, but this just keeps getting hairier and hairier demanding it's own thread. Sorry :(

Although this first post is a C&P regurgitation of the last info from another thread subsequent posts will highlight boiled down items of interest.
(IOW, there's a big difference between writing copy to fill collumn inches and writing to slam home crude education - which is my preferred approach: "Ten words or less. What?!"

Subsequent posts will examine individual articles begining with that FilmThreat Going Bionic series.

Have fun. :)

* * * * * * * * *

Another interesting VOD article:
Dated - Fall 2009 http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/issues/fall2009/industry-beat.php

By all accounts, the most successful VOD films fall into one of a few categories, horror-thrillers (Dark Mirror, Magnolia's Surveillance or The Mutant Chronicles), sexy stuff (like some of IFC's racy French fare) or star-studded comedies (IFC's I Hate Valentine's Day, starring the leads from My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

"The films working on cable VOD are going to be the films that people want to watch with other people, things that are provocative, either from a violence or stylish sense, or a titillating standpoint,"

It appears that if you can skip the dubious expense of a questionable theatrical release, the title and description are intriguing enough, that VOD only distribution may be fairly viable.

Surprisingly some filmmakers are ending up in better fiscal shape by bypassing the theatrical route. Joe Swanberg says the VOD performance for his latest film, Alexander the Last, was similar to his previous Hannah Takes the Stairs. Both were released on IFC with grosses around $250,000. But Alexander may turn out to be significantly more profitable because the higher expenses associated with Hannah's theatrical release ate up all of its VOD proceeds.



And another "more" current article:
Dated - Jun 29, 2010 http://www.filmthreat.com/features/22975/

Finding a way to get your film noticed can be as hard, or harder, than finding the money to make your film in the first place. Of course having certain elements like a notable cast and a “bionic” genre (i.e. action, sci-fi and thriller) will certainly help. But, you should have a clear idea about who your audience is and how you can exploit your product to them through the correct V.O.D. platform.

2) People under the age of 25 buy most of the content sold to cell phones.

Since most contracts with V.O.D. suppliers are non-exclusive, your distributor should exploit your film to multiple suppliers. Let me just clarify that point: Your contract with your distributor is always exclusive, but their contract with V.O.D. suppliers is usually non-exclusive. This means you can have your film available to multiple V.O.D. suppliers if it makes sense to do so.

Cool. There's a series: http://www.filmthreat.com/page/7/?s="going+bionic"



Another informative "definitions of VOD" article:
Dated - Aug 25, 2011 http://www.sellingyourfilm.com/blog/tag/film-distribution-contracts/


Good Lord.
The amount of data to learn on this subject is... deep enough to drown in.
Looks like a chock-load of undated FREE RESOURCES in that first left column block: http://www.filmspecific.com/public/main.cfm


I think this is enough to keep me busy for a week.
(BTW, did I ever tell you guys that the reason I got interested in filmmaking is because I DON'T like reading anymore, especially when a book takes six or more hours to convey what a film can do in under two hours? And what am I doing a sh!t load of now? Yuk yuk yuk. Life is funny).
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Moving onto page 3: http://www.filmthreat.com/page/5/?s="going+bionic"


Ugh.
How your distributor beats information and action out of you to (partially) earn their cut.
Posted on September 28, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/26129/



Posted on October 5, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/26467/
"Trust me filmmakers: if you have an almost-finished film right now, the last thing you want to do is copyright in this year. [Next year] is less than [X] weeks away from ending, so in [X] weeks, your film will be one-year old to those who matter.


a) As of January 1, [this year], distributors and buyers will pay you less for a [last year's] copyright – just like car dealers give discounts on [last year's] models when [this year's] arrive.
b) As of January 1, [this year], your film festival run will be cut at least one year short, and your film may be disqualified from several festivals for being too old to screen before it should.


99% of buyers get funded in January. Thus, they will have a lot more money to spend at the beginning of the year, as opposed to October, November or December.
While I’m not saying you can’t sell your film in the fall months, I am saying that you’ll get more money for your masterpiece when buyers and distributors have their coffers lined with cash."


Posted on October 12, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/26469/
"but these days TV markets provide the best opportunity for independent films to find distribution.

Like film buyers, TV buyers will expect your film to have solid names. But, if it doesn’t, you still may have a chance to land a TV sale because your film may fit into an open slot that needs to be filled by various networks and cable outlets."

Wow. This is good to know:
"Chapter Eleven Is Distributor Heaven
With the crash of the world financial market, quite a few distributors and sales agents have found themselves taking huge, six figure and seven figure losses. Most are so hopelessly under water, that it’d take an Avatar or two to pull them out of debt. So, instead of continuing to dig their own grave, many independent distributors are purposely bankrupting themselves and then setting up shop under a new company name. This can be a very smart business move, but it royally screws filmmakers. This is because once bankrupt; the distributor doesn’t have to pay filmmakers what they owe them. What’s worse, the films the distributor represents usually get tied up in the bankruptcy.
Attention filmmakers: when you’re signing a distribution contract, make sure you get two things in it:
1 - Your film rights revert back to you immediately upon your distributor or sales agent filing for bankruptcy.
2 - Your distributor cannot reassign or sell your rights to another entity, without your express written consent.
Demand these two clauses and you’ll safeguard yourself from having your film be eaten up by a bankruptcy.

Thus, if you’re a filmmaker whose about to make a film, it’d be a really good idea to meet with distributors and sales agents to get a read on what your film would be worth – before you risk life and limb to make it.

If you’ve already put your neck, credit rating and everything else you and your investors own on the line to make your film, then you should get a few distribution companies to give you an estimate of what your film is worth. If the number will get you shot by your investors, then it’d be smarter to wait until the first quarter of [next year] to go after distribution, in order to see if prices get better. Of course waiting until [next year] is also risky, because doing so will age your film and likely lessen its value."
I see this as a very valuable point in strategically planning a film project.
At the end of the year there's less money the buyers have, but if you wait until the beginning of the next year when they do have more cash then...
IOW, be smart.
Plan for your film to be bagged and tagged by the very last end of the year and ONLY ready at the beginning of the year, even if it's next year.

The whole section is interesting to know: Blame It On The Euro
Click on the ten year chart: http://www.google.com/finance?hl=en...y_onebox_chart&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ5QYwAA
If you're not into currency exchange stuff, when the euro (€) INCREASES in value relative to the US dollar ($) EU companies can buy MORE American film product/content.
(They can buy more anything, really, like crude oil or US exports. This is why our government deliberately devalues the US$ by increasing our debt to devalue our creditworthiness to increase exports to help US manufacturing).

Another good section to read that supports the clarion call I constantly pound: STORY trumps budget and actors : Even Well-Packaged Films With Stars Attached Have Lost Value


Posted on November 9, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/27540/
Goes without saying, but just thought I'd stick it in your face...
The most important thing to remember about PR firms is that they are not miracle workers... It’s like that old saying “A rose by any other name is still a rose.” If your film is a rose, a great PR firm will nurture its full bloom. However, if your film is a weed, your PR firm will try like hell to make it look like a rose, and hopefully convince most people it’s a middle-of-the pack daisy. Surely daisies aren’t as fabulous as roses, but they sure as hell aren’t weeds!


Posted on November 16, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/27764/
"Martin Scorsese... advised... not to wait for the studio system to accept him, but to make films outside the system whenever possible... Leonardo DiCaprio chimed in, by adding how many studio executives “scour the internet looking at $3,000 short films in search of new talent.”... DiCaprio added that he wasn’t sure if [period pieces like] Gangs of New York and The Aviator would be made in today’s studio system, due to the “sharp shift in what studios are willing to take risks on during the recent financial crisis.”

Your script may not have the right timing or social climate to work.

... if your film doesn’t find a theatrical distributor in five to six months, much less five or six years, it simply isn’t meant to be a theatrical release.
Hence, you should figure out how pretty your “baby” is early on, and then find the right *home to nurture its release."
* Theatrical, TV, Cable, VOD.

This is more of a film production thing than a VOD distribution thing:
"Spend As Little Money As You Can On Your First Film
It’s probably a good idea to assume your first film won’t be the one you retire on, so there’s no need to break the bank for it. While you should break your “creative bank” to make sure the script is damn good, you should remember that your first film is more of a calling card and less of an American Express Black Card. Thus, if you’re spending your own money, try to only spend what you can afford to lose."


Posted on November 23, 2010: http://www.filmthreat.com/features/28004/
"Waiting to see how your film does at the festival before you decide on representation is often times a fatal career mistake, because your film’s potential is far sexier and more valuable before its premiere. Once your film opens at the festival, the reality of how it actually does may be far less sexy than initially anticipated. Should that happen, you might lose your best shot to land a substantial agent, manager or lawyer. Thus, signing before the festival premiere is a smart move."

I believe I've nagged this point plenty before.
"Contrary to your belief, and the belief of those who invested in and worked on your festival film, your “real money” is probably going to come from your next project, not the one in the festival. That’s why you should have your next project(s) ready to go. You need something your newfound representation can push before your current film plays the film festival."

Interesting. I didn't know festivals had annual agendas. Is that something like a theme?
"The best-case scenario is that they liked it, but it didn’t fit into their programming agenda for this year’s festival."


"The key here is to find a celebrity – the biggest one you can wrangle – to put their name on your film as the executive producer... make sure they are a household name to the extent that most everybody... will know who the person is... The tactic here is to get your film noticed. Once programmers take notice, then it’s up to your film to deliver the goods. However, if your executive producer is someone the industry likes, fears or respects, the festival programmer may slide your film into their festival as a favor to your executive producer".


"If you’re lucky enough to have a “pretty good” film, that could become a “very good” or an “excellent” film, after another edit, better sound or smoother special effects, then take your film off the festival circuit and reshape it."

"Many top tier film festival programmers not only know each other, but they are aware of what films each other are programming. Therefore, if you get into Sundance and do well there, it’s likely you’ll get in invite to screen at Berlin or Cannes. Of course the same procedure works in reverse; if you get rejected from a few of the ultra-top tier, extremely well financed film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, Toronto, Venice), then you’ll probably get rejected from the others. Thus, it’s probably a good idea to only apply to one of them initially."


Okay. This article may be gilding the lily a bit, but it may be relevant to someone a couple tiers of quality above what I'll ever produce in the near future.
Posted on December 14, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/28466/

Author's recap of his past 33 "Going Bionic" articles.
Posted on December 28, 2010 : Posted on December 28, 2010

A lotta good general information in here, plus some other resource links
Posted on January 7, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/28565/
http://www.filmthreat.com/news/25898/
http://www.filmfestivalsecrets.com/
http://filmfestmarketing.com/site/
Someone please remind me to follow up on these, later. ;)


Alright, that's the end of page 3.
I'll give this series a break for a few days and resume on page 4 maybe this weekend.
http://www.filmthreat.com/page/4/?s="going+bionic"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay, now this part of the article seemed so... DEMANDING that I thought it appropriate to place in it's own post rather than risk losing it in one of the monolithic slab posts.
(Yeah. I'm aware of it. Deal). :tongue:



Posted on September 7, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/25213/
"The International Distributor Should Know The Actual Budget
Assuming the international distributor is well meaning toward the success of the film, he or she should be aware how much money needs to be recouped to break even. Too often filmmakers will play games and refuse to reveal their actual budget to their international distributor, but such a practice only hurts the filmmaker and the film. If an international distributor is kept in the dark of how much needs to be recouped, they will simply accept every offer, regardless of how small it may be.

Recouping The Budget Is Not A True Concern of An International Distributor
Technically speaking, international distributors don’t have to worry about a film breaking even because they will get paid on what they sell, even if those sales are far less than the budget of the film. Thus, it’s important to find an international distributor who truly believes in the film, because they’re going to get paid whether the film does well or not.

The Portion Of A Film’s Budget That’s Recouped By International Sales
In a perfect world (which we are clearly not in), a film should recoup 40%-60% of its perceived budget through international sales before the international distributor takes out his or her fees. However, in the current marketplace for independent films, getting even 40% of the budget from international sales would be a dream. More realistically, filmmakers should expect international sales to come in around 20%-25% of their perceived budget with an outside shot of wrangling 40%."

First, I wasn't even aware that an accurate budget was relevant to the distributor for anything more than possible marketing purposes ("Look at what we did for $10k!") and token conversation.

Second, "break even"?! WTH's it matter what the producer's budget is to the distributor or buyer/supplier or viewer?
If the buyers/suppliers collectively think maybe XXX-thousand downloads is legit then... THAT's what they think the film translates to in value that they are or should be willing to purchase from the distributor, irregardless of the film's actual production costs.

Third, "recouped"?! The distributor doesn't have to recoup any production costs. WTH?!

Fourth, "Technically speaking"?! Technically speaking - no sh!t.

I fail to understand why a distributor would demand $XXXk from buyers/suppliers if the perceived production cost was $100k but only $Xk if the perceived production cost was $10k.
That seems like horsesh!t to me.

Fifth, I guess this all has to do with providing a fabricated production budget so that the distributor can provide their salespeople with a figure to satisfy the producer.
I dunno.
It all sounds like increasing heaps of BS games.


Anyone with some clarification on this will be greatly appreciated.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
GA - I know you have at least one feature bagged & tagged. Whatchugot?
Click to expand...

My film is 3 years on the festival circuit (in fact, just the other day I got another acceptance for the end of March). I've sold a number of "pre-release" DVDs off the webpage, facebook and in-person hawking. It's NOT on the net because it doing so would exclude it from some festivals.

This year I plan to release the official DVD which will contain extras and I'll also do the VOD thing although I haven't entirely decide which way I'll go with it. I like Amazon.com because I sell my "day job" stuff there . . . but I have made no decision.

My feedback from Facebook seems to indicate many prefer to watch the film via some kind of internet stream than via a DVD. If this turns out to be true, I'll be rolling in dough. But, of course, its talk. With the DVD, I'd say for every 20 people that "says" they'll get it, one actually click the "buy" link. If this ratio is the same for VOD, then I've a lot of marketing to do.

That's where I'm at now!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cool distribution nugget find by DeJager:
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?p=249392#post249392
448​

I find unqualified anecdotal personal opinions to be alarmist and harmful:
"One filmmaker says that because distribution companies are paying so little for rights to an indie movie, unless your film cost less than $5,000 you aren't going to get your money back. Another says that Lion's Gate used to pay $50,000 advances, but now they're barely paying $5,000."
Still, it looks pretty depressing as you say. :(


Yeeouch.
"Nowadays a movie must be made as cheaply as possible or it is doomed. With no stars (with legitimate box office draw) in your film, realistically you're probably not going to make more than $1,000 to $10,000 in gross profit in the USA over the life of the DVD."


Oh, h3ll yeah.
"The need for a someone "famous" in your movie can literally make the difference between getting distribution and not getting distribution, or between selling DVD's and not selling DVD's. This will cost you more money. If you are making an indie movie, don't just open up your wallet to anyone who seems "famous" or claims that their name sell DVD's because they appeared in this movie and that movie. Actors have big egos and will always make big claims. Instead you need someone with legitimate box office draw power."
Just look at the following links under "Starring" then "BO Gain or Loss".
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Hh6cHJBMW5aQkZSMzZYR2V3VUxQVUE&hl=en_US#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0
A single well known star, or even a gaggle of 'em, doesn't guarantee sh!t for theatrical distribution.
In fact, I will go on to say that just because a star reads your screenplay and agrees to work for whatever fee, that DOESN'T EQUATE to any sort of validation of how the story IS on paper or will BE after shooting and editing.
"Oh! Billy Zane agreed to be in MY film!" Ooo-whop-tee-doo!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1460639/ = Ratings: 2.7/10 from 353 users
MANY stars agree to be in SH!T films.


Oh, I like this. This makes a fair bit of sense:
"FILM FESTIVALS:
The goal of entering a film festival should be to get the attention of a quality distributor and maybe get some press / buzz. For most indie films I would not waste my money on the big film festivals like Cannes, Sundance, etc. On the flip side I would also not waste my time on rinky-dink film festivals in isolated cities where no industry people will ever see your movie and nobody will care if you were a winner either. I believe it's best to pick a few medium sized festivals in major markets like Los Angeles and New York, where distributors are based. A few that come to mind are the San Fernando Film Festival, the Malibu Film Festival, the Long Island Film Festival, and CineVegas. Otherwise I think you're just throwing away money. If you don't get any action out of these festivals then it's time to focus on self distribution."
Honestly, I could see both this POV and that of by winning or even showing in rinky-dinks that still generates more interest and attention to your own self distributed indie film.
To NOT generate interest is essentially leaving money on the table, HOWEVER this honestly depends upon if you feel your product really is good enough to warrant the speculative expense or is it actually just your ugly baby and you're wasting money better spent on your next/current production.


Niiiice.
"Based on my experience I fully believe that some if not most sales agents and/or distributors out there are opportunists and/or con artists, who fully intend to skip out on paying you in full or just want to cash in on your non-traditional sales, knowing that your movie has very little chance of ever getting distribution into physical stores like Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc."


"Often they will only get you a deal with a small distributor that merely only winds up selling your DVD on Internet, which anybody can effectively do.
I'm of the opinion that most indie filmmakers can do a better job just being their own sales agent, thus saving 15 to 25% plus expenses."


"Foreign distribution deals are made in the form of cash buyouts per territory. Do not sign a deal whereby a foreign distributor pays you a percentage of sales, because from what I've seen they NEVER DO pay you or they short change you."


"Unfortunately it is very rare that an indie film ever gets that all important press and publicity that you need to begin to actually make money selling a movie. Any buzz usually begins at a film festival or by going "viral" on the Internet. If the movie doesn't have what it takes to create a buzz, it just won't take-off.
The movie does the selling -- not the distributor. Some distributors might like you to believe that they have magical selling powers, but they can't squeeze blood out of a rock."


"Realistically an indie filmmaker's best route is to post their movie on YouTube, enter it into a few film festivals, and then hope for the best.
It's highly unlikely that a nationally distributed magazine or TV program will mention your movie, but if you have a unique angle to get their attention then it can't hurt."



Two more cool links from the same content provider:
http://www.yourinvestmentadvise.com/film-investing.htm
http://www.yourinvestmentadvise.com/distributors.htm
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
We're talking features, right?

That Youtube posting comment at the bottom is incorrect -- a film on youtube will preclude you from many festivals. This question is on many festival submission forms.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
We're talking features, right?

That Youtube posting comment at the bottom is incorrect -- a film on youtube will preclude you from many festivals. This question is on many festival submission forms.
Click to expand...
Likely.
I don't have much faith in distributing shorts, VOD or otherwise.

I didn't catch any youtube reference. Where'd that pop up? I'm interested in checking it out, too. TIA.
Oh, yeah. Doesn't everyone here know a YT posting negates festival entries? D'jah! :weird:






* * * *
Placeholder before I forget it: http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjour...s/cinemas/e3iaf588812bb9adc86d1c1fcbb984ddd73
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Just note: Sci-fi = vfx/sfx spectacle.
Click to expand...
Emphasis on spectacle.

Although I've noticed what I call a scifi lite trend, I don't think they do 'as well' as the SFX bonanzas, and even then, if you consider the employment situation of the under 25 group that whole movie segment is under pressure.
I'm expecting fewer studio attempts to produce expensive VFX-fests in the near future.
IDK what this means for indies; more or less demand?

Films I consider SciFi-Lite (Having very little SFX, but a ton of drama)
Never Let Me Go
The Adjustment Bureau
The Source Code
Limitless
Melancholia
Another Earth
Inception
Monsters
The Time Travelers Wife




And from the waaaaaaaay off topic corner, I've also noticed this trend, as well:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...ld_they_make_a_comeback_.html?wpisrc=obinsite
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Excellent list.

Note that most of those are Festival darlings, as well.

Monsters, being made on an exceptionally low number, is alright. I think it borders on the Spectacle thing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This thread has been a great read. Thanks for that, rayw and Kholi. I'm definitely going to read "How to sell, without..."

One question, though:

Kholi said:
I could make a feature about a horse with a poisoned ass or a boy and his pair of pet turtles and I'd sell plenty straight-to-consumer without ever having to try.
Click to expand...

How?

You've got a movie that doesn't fit the standards you guys have mentioned (VFX, etc.). So, if it doesn't fit into the mold of the kind of film that typically does will with VOD, how do you sell that one?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
This thread has been a great read. Thanks for that, rayw and Kholi. I'm definitely going to read "How to sell, without..."

One question, though:



How?

You've got a movie that doesn't fit the standards you guys have mentioned (VFX, etc.). So, if it doesn't fit into the mold of the kind of film that typically does will with VOD, how do you sell that one?
Click to expand...

Oh, no it fits into what I've been saying. Remember this: Faces/Stars, Genre Spectacle (horror, Sci-Fi, Supernatural), Festival Darling or Social Commentary, and Hyper-niche

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Horses/111933198826503

Horses = Hyper-Niche

Imagine if I sold one digital download to just three percent of the near two million facebook followers of that page.

Make sense now?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And just imagine if it was about a magical horse (Vfx).

LOL

Of course, I don't know anything about horses so I'd just be a fraud trying to grab someone's money. I think hyper-niche requires a love for the content in general, or the people that do love it will spot you out and the word-of-mouth you need amongst them just won't be there.

You can witness this when people who aren't serious Christians try to make Christian films.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Got it. Makes sense.

BTW -- I think in the future, I'm totally going to be one of those people who aren't serious Christians trying to make Christian films! Except I came from a very serious Christian background, so I think I can pull it off! :)

Cheers, and thanks for the thoughts and info on VOD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Sci-Fi Lite indeed. Festival Darling.

just like Another Earth, neither of which made much money at all. Even after Sundance festival winning.

And Primer is in my top 3, I would never make that movie if I had to actually pay it back.
Click to expand...

But one could take the same script and "VFX" it up a bit for not that much more. I've watched it a few times with that in mind.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Excellent list.

Note that most of those are Festival darlings, as well.

Monsters, being made on an exceptionally low number, is alright. I think it borders on the Spectacle thing.
Click to expand...
Thank you, sir.
Indeed, I did. I think that's just the math of any film requiring 700+ SFX sequences probably knows in advance that the film demands broader distribution that a festival debut just can't satisfy.
It's economics rather than art at that point. No harm, no foul on either camp.

I flinchingly expected to get tagged in Inception, whose primary "SciFi" element was some dorky tubes/wires applied to the wrists and attached to a fabricated pumping machine. Other than the bending of what I think is Paris overhead the rest of the film was pretty much straight action.

Now, Monsters was a ton of drama, a bunch of signs photoshopped, and few scant creature effects.
It was mostly about the character arcs (Maralyn, avert your eyes ;)) between the two principals.
It'tweren't no Jurassic Park.
JP, JPII, & JPIII are SFX bonanzas in a tropical setting.


GuerrillaAngel said:
So, Primer is SciFi lite?
Click to expand...
Were there any mega blasting aliens destroying cities?
Any 100ft robots firing rockets from finger tips and swinging 50ft lazer swords?
Any undead minions of Satan turning mortals into cinder-black winged demons?
Nope.
Two guys, a DIY box machine in the garage, a larger pair of boxes taped with aluminum tape in a storage unit, some hearsay exposition, and some drama.
No SFX bonanza, therefore SciFi Lite. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've seen both Primer and Another Earth and liked them both. They were very pretty films. Acting was great. To the non-filmmaker not worried about production value, they would look like any other movie. So after they won Sundance, why didn't anybody bother marketing them properly? What kind of movie is worth making, if you want a decent return on it? Comedy and Horror and VFX driven films? Anything else?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top