Hijacking a thread!: Let's play What If...

Status
Not open for further replies.
...firstly, I am hijacking a thread. The independant movie industry one is making my head hurt.

...However, I actually got an idea when looking it over...

...In my home town, there are two small independently owned movie theaters. They both only have one screen. Now, of course, there are the 'movieplexes'; GKC and AMC, but these two little theaters are second run houses.

...In the metro Detroit area, there are two independantly owned and operated theaters that are well known for showing independant films, (the Maple and Main Art Theaters).

...I would think that there are little one screen theaters all over the country like these, one screen, showing art, indie or second run films.

...What if these owners could be convinced that there is an audience for indie film (because there is) and also be impressed upon to make some sort of 'commitment to showing indie film? What if they could become maybe a co-op (?), where they decide and agree that okay, we will show 'Primer', we will show 'Murderball', we will show 'Memento', show 'Supersize Me' or whatever indie film is being appreciated.

...since Hollywood wants so much to show 'Dukes of Hazzard', fine. These theaters could commit to showing these small films that people hear just won at Sundance or Cannes or Slamdance or what have you as an alternative to the usual fare.

...maybe, since they know (indie filmmakers can impress this upon them) that indie filmmakers are usually just this side of broke, they can give cut rates to these filmmakers. This way, they have more films to choose from with an almost guaranteed audience of people who want more to watch than yet another car chase and explosion and the indie filmmakers have a place to show.

...since these films are often considered to be 'art' and therefore present a service to the community, maybe they could be advertised on the televised community bulletin boards that tv stations sometimes use to satisfy fcc regulations of community service and therefore would be free advertising.

...maybe an agreement could be made to show, say 'Primer' for about 2 weeks. If it does well (relatively well) give another week. If not, well, it had a 2 week run in a theater which is enough time for people to find the film and like it or not like it. People vote with thier pocketbooks.

...if the film gets discovered by Hollywood the way 'Resevouir Dogs' did, then okay, the film gets picked up, and good luck, but since the indie theaters made the initial committment to a film that was initially ignored by the Big Industry, something is given in exchange for the 'release' of this film to the bigger distributor, like 'This film discovered by Indie Co-op Theaters' or something like that. Something that would make it worth the risk of taking on the film in the first place and to make up for the loss of a film that might have a distribution machine to push it and possibly take it to the level of a blockbuster film.

...it would be nice if the cost of making the film could be lowered also, at least a little, like equipment rental or film transfer, so that people could have real access to services to produce the film. (I personally am tired of hearing people say they charge what the market will bear. People pay this because they have to in order to get their vision made. Not because they are happy to do so. No more, no less).

...this is about as far as I got on this 'idea'. Somebody with more business know how than I might be able to come up with a way to make this work...

--spinner :cool:
 
This is actually making me think of the old thread about a new method of distribution a while back. A chain of indie cinemas screening from a selection of films all over the world.

Clive was working on a solution, as I recall. I remember the problem boiled down to getting the funding and advertising the venue.

What do you all think will work better though... headlining one movie for a period of time, or having a small selection of films throughout a time period.

The one movie thing would be advantageous because it would be more focused, but the multiple selections gives variety to attract broader audiences.

What do you think would be more plausible?
 
spinner said:
...it would be nice if the cost of making the film could be lowered also, at least a little, like equipment rental or film transfer, so that people could have real access to services to produce the film. (I personally am tired of hearing people say they charge what the market will bear. People pay this because they have to in order to get their vision made. Not because they are happy to do so. No more, no less).
Some great ideas here - but this one jumped out at me.

With the advent of DV the cost already got lower - much lower. Yet there are certain fixed costs that cannot be lowered. Equipment must be maintained. Here in LA there are a few really cheap rental houses - indie filmmakers who rent when they aren't shooting. They rent cheap and they are really good people who really care and want to help. What they don't have is enough money to fix and replace old equipment - because they hardly make any profit on the rental. So if someone breaks a c-stand or knocks over a 5k or backs the truck over the dolly track they don't have a replacement sitting in a warehouse so you can replace it immediately.

I end up going to a more expensive place.

And video to film transfer also has fixed costs. I'm sure a lab could find a young person willing to work the machine for minimum wage and pass that saving on to you. But as a filmmaker, I want a pro, someone with experience, running that equipment. And they want to get paid for their experience.
 
GREATwarEAGLE said:
This is not a sarcastic post.

See what funchie did, he got everything thinking.

Ws it funchie? Or fungus?

Whats that kids name again?


There have been several discussions on this subject since before el funcho came a knockin'.
But he has got me thinking, oh yes.
Thinking about how much I want to visit Europe again, specifically Italy. Or maybe I want funches to visit Italy. Maybe I want to give him the boot.

I'm not drunk. It's just too early in the morning.
 
Spatula said:
What do you all think will work better though... headlining one movie for a period of time, or having a small selection of films throughout a time period.

...I think there are still things that may stay constant. One is that people like to have a choice. However, maybe if we didn't go all out, maybe start with two films to push, more reason to patronize the little one screen theater. We help them by giving them something to put people in the seats, they help us by a certain level of commitment to showing indie fare...

..I guess some things are just constant like the price of film transfer and equip. But if you are starting out, I just mean to say that a video to film transfer to me seems very daunting. If my project goes anywhere, I don't know how I will get a transfer. Maybe a barter or something... I guess sometimes it just seems a little elite-ist. I haven't been (not in now) the business, I guess this is just how things are right now :rolleyes:

...I think funches needs to be clearer...and that's all I'm going to say because I don't want this thread to end up like that one, and I have unsubscribed to it....one of the things I like is that we can talk out ideas without necessarily being negative. That thread was beginning to collapse on itself...

--spinner :cool:
 
Last edited:
Spinner, I'm not sure a video to film transfer would be considered part of 'finishing costs', but there are grants specifically geared towards 'finishing funds'.. ..WOMEN IN FILM, I believes offers those awards.

You've already got seed money, so it looks pretty good you'll be able to secure production as well as finishing monies. :)
 
And it doesn't necessarily need to be film. Lots of small indie theatres are equiping themselves with digital projection.

It could be possible to take advantage of this technology and get a tech company involved as a sponsor.
 
GREATwarEAGLE said:
This is not a sarcastic post.

See what funchie did, he got everything thinking.
I agree. The idea is a great one. I quite talking about with him when he slipped into insults. He has fun and it seems others have fun but I don’t. Hopefully we can discuss this idea as if we were actually capable of doing it - not trying to prove who comes up with the best insults.

Here in LA we’re a little spoiled - there are venues to show truly independent movies. Not many and it takes a huge effort and many times money to get a movie shown - but it can be done.

The films spinner mentions (Primer, Murderball, Memento, SuperSize Me) all hit the theaters the traditional way.

How do we get people to pay to see our small movies that haven’t been shown in festivals and gotten “buzz”?

Convincing theater owners that there is interest is a great start.

The big festivals (SlamDance, DancesWithFilms, Santa Barbara, Ann Arbor and the like) get two to three thousands submissions each year. How would our “co-op” handle the amount of movies out there?
spinner said:
...I think there are still things that may stay constant. One is that people like to have a choice. However, maybe if we didn't go all out, maybe start with two films to push, more reason to patronize the little one screen theater. We help them by giving them something to put people in the seats, they help us by a certain level of commitment to showing indie fare...
spinner this is exactly where the problem sits. I’ve been involved in this type of venture before - even lost some money on one once.

Getting a group of 15 filmmakers, all with finished feature films, to agree on the first two is a daunting task. Each of them sincerely believes that theirs is the one to launch the project. And within a month of their movie NOT getting chosen the filmmaker looses interest in promoting the other films. Just imagine how funches would react if this group at indietalk chose the movies of zensteve and clive to start this venture...

I have no answers - just questions.

==========================================================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
 
Ah, a grown up discussion. Thank goodness.

I've wrestled with this issue for nearly a year now and am still not convinced I have a working solution. This is what I am sure of is:

1) There are digital theatre venues available in most cinemas and films that aren't getting distribution because the multiplexes aren't interested and the arthouse cinemas are only interested in films with film prints.
2) Once you factor in the cost of film prints the economics of theatre distribution just don't work for indies.
3) Arthouse cinemas are already struggling to find audiences for the indie films that have secured distribution and marketing budgets. So with that in mind, finding a decent margin for the theatre owners (or indies hiring a theatre) is tricky, especially if the filmmakers want a cut of the theatre takings.

I think the key questions therefore become:

1) Is it possible to create a grass roots demand for a film by showing it in digital cinemas? And could this grass roots support be used to drive enough direct DVD sales or to convince a mainstream distributor to take it on?
2) What is the optimum budget level for a film to break even via indie self distribution?

My thoughts are that if we can make great (an I underline that great movies for ultra low budgets then it is possible. I think that the key to that is developing new production techniques and learning what equipment we can do without.

Personally I'm thinking that shooting on HD with an ultra slim crew, using natural light where possible and when not using kinos to light, rather than more expensive lighting rigs is the answer.

One of the film movements that worked on lots of levels was dogma, because it set up a production philosophy that became the brand of the film. It was also a philosophy that alllowed them to drive down production costs.

My work has always been about finding people to work with and working with impossibily small budgets. I'm have a production philosophy for myself and it's about international co-productions, using HD and keeping production budgets down.

One thing that I'm seriously looking at is whether it makes more financial sense to make films in countries like Thailand where I can really keep production costs down and that give me the additional sales angle of an exotic location. Currently I'm working on a project in Ghana and one in Croatia. Of course for me landscape is the kick off for the narative, so that makes sense.

I think that's it for the moment. Enjoying the discussion though.
 
clive said:
1) Is it possible to create a grass roots demand for a film by showing it in digital cinemas? And could this grass roots support be used to drive enough direct DVD sales or to convince a mainstream distributor to take it on?
2) What is the optimum budget level for a film to break even via indie self distribution?

1) I think it will depend on which cinema is showing what movie to what audience. Big cities with large "cult" or "independent" audiences would have the best turnout. I think a clever ad campaign could turn a lot of people "on" to indie films. Naturally, the films would need to be quality; I think the most important thing a kind of project like this would need, would be a great marketing team. If we could find (perhaps from this very website) a team willing to handle promotions and able to really get creative with the campaigns, it might be possible to attract an audience.

2) Anything below $100,000 can be redeemed eventually. Eliminate middle-men, increasing the workload of the organizers, but cutting the costs drastically. Conceivably, if the organizers could produce copies of the DVD's and distribute them through a website themselves, there would be good proft margins. Doing research on our Macbeth 3000 DVD, if we order 1000 DVDs, sell them for $20 each (double disc, so 500 copies), the cost is low enough to get a $15 return on every DVD. If we call is $10 to count for unforseen costs, marketing, and shipping, selling 500 DVD's with a $10 return would give us $10,000. That recoups our production costs completely and gives us enough to purchase another order of DVDs. The only problem is selling them.
If we can sell 3000 DVDs, we would have enough to begin another production.
Taking the same kind of approach, and distributing DVD's at screenings, I think there would be enough return to sustain the project.

Thoughts?
 
Now this is a discussion worth joining. It isn't hard to make a splash on the local level in mid-level markets if you have a good project. We have a local art house theater that shows all the winners of the indie film circuit but as has been pointed out, that route is already in place. The theater has gotten behind us, is actually soliciting us rather than the other way around for another showing. We can also self-distribute dvds. But I think most people with some talent and gumption (my grandmother's word, god bless her) can work locally. And that is just not enough to sustain an artist full-time. I don't mean SUV-Porshe-two-swimming-pool sustain, I mean quit the day job, raise $50k or so and crank out a movie, pay deserving talent and put gas in the Plymouth Neon. If you're talking about indie films as artistic expression and labor-of-love, the movie is its own reward.

The problem is almost too simple to state; how do you SELL indie films to a large segment of the population nationwide? To do that, I don't think there is any way to get enough juice for individual projects. The P&E are prohibitive. So you'd have to have a pretty organized group with a vested interest in pushing the idea of indie films who would then plug in the film they deem to merit the attention. It would be selling the idea an "alternative" film industry marketed to and for people who liked the idea of something outside of the mainstream Hollywood system. I'm not even bashing the system, sometimes I like to watch "The 50 Year Old Virgin".

So I think I have the germ of an answer to the above problem...it's the indie theater that has the power locally. People will go to the Naro (our local movie house) because they believe in it and it has a rep and "street cred." In other words, it already has an in with the target market, an interested public that seeks an alternative to the mainstream megaplex. If a loose affiliation of similar venues could communicate and offer support, some sort of alternative cinema distribution on a wide-scale basis is possible. Here are the barriers that immediately pop up in my head:

1. How do you build that affiliation between those theaters? (I wouldn’t be surprised if this already existed, some sort of national support group)

2. What do they gain? As already stated, these guys are struggling to stay afloat. There has to be valid payoff. In other words, the films HAVE to succeed in a way and you'd need to assure them of that, a pretty difficult task.

3. What possible way could "indie filmmakers", a scattered and varied group, have of contacting theaters and organizing this? I could talk to our local theater, you could talk to yours, etc., but then how are films judged? Why should I be the contact here, what if there is another local filmmaker who should be involved? Does each market or region team up?

4. How are films chosen? Does this become "The Indie Film Circuit" yearly festival? That defeats the purpose, really.

5. How are profits (that's the idea, right, we have to fund our films and we have to eat and theaters have to pay electic bills and so on and so on) distributed? This would almost be a new version of the original film studio where the big boys owned their own theater chains. This is the co-op version with some sort of affiliation between "Indie Film Group" (whoever they are) and "Alternative Cinemas" (whoever they are.) Call it “The Alternative Film Co-Op.” Do people buy in, “invest” in some sort of say? Then those with the most money want the most votes, it gets tricky as soon as money starts passing hands.

6. If an affiliation like that were possible, there would have to be a concerted, shared effort at advertising. That's the bottom line of a film's success, people have to hear of something, have to become curious or interested. Word of mouth is only so loud. So local press, P&E, all that stuff, has to be done and the burden of cost would have to be shared across the board. It's the area where Hollywood kicks everyone's ass. Months and months and months of blanket coverage and ads. Think of all the magazines that cover that shit for FREE. It's hard not to hear of "Dukes of Hazzard" so hate it or love it, the machine has done its job because it's mentioned here among the elite, passionate visionaries of filmdom.

7. This is a big underlying problem - if indie theaters unite, what keeps the indie filmmaker as part of the shot-calling process? It's possible that a system like that keeps us more like workers in the Nike factory. It ain’t the means of production, it's the means of distribution that has the true power in the equation.

Now if there were a way to marry the theaters with the producers of films, you'd have a shot at something. I think this skeleton has the possibility to support a body but it needs some skin and muscle, some heart and of course, scarecrow, a brain or two.
 
Last edited:
All interesting questions. Let’s turn them back on ourselves.

Look at your own collection - movies you have purchased.
Look at your rental list - be it Netflix or Blockbuster or an independent MomAndPop store.
Look at the last year of going to the movies.

How many of the movies in these categories are truly independent? Not made by someone you know and no name actors.

If we, independent moviemakers, don’t financially support (renting, buying, theater going) independent movies how can we expect the general public, even those interested in this type of filmmaking to support it.
 
I've had a bit of an epiphany about this today but I'm against a schedule so I'll have to come back to it later.

However, can I pull the conversation back a bit, from how we could work with theatres, which is about solutions to the issues of distribution and just ask this ..

What is it we are trying to achieve? What is end goal that this solution is suposed to fix?

I'll come back to this later today.

(I can also suggest that anyone whio wasn't involved reads the "Let's get serious about distribution thread" which is the distribution forum. So that we're not going over old territory.
 
From what I've gathered, this is what I believe the ultimate goals are:
1) To create an independent filmmaking community that supports each other's projects in the final stages.
2) To generate public interest in this community's art.
3) To create a sustainable alternative system of venues that connect independent films with the audiences.

I think the ultimate goal is to create a sort of "underground market" that will boost interest, sales, and attendence to independent films.

In turn, this would benefit the independent cinemas because of the increase in attendence.
 
clive said:
(I can also suggest that anyone whio wasn't involved reads the "Let's get serious about distribution thread" which is the distribution forum. So that we're not going over old territory.

I just read that and am now caught up to speed. No more redundant ideas from me, but I'd be glad to help out with any solutions.


Spatula's last post puts it pretty concisely and correctly. The broad-based goals are valid, the devil is always in the details. It's a collaborative distribution and publicity machine that's needed first and foremost.

Does anyone know what a small cinema has to pay for their traditional films? What price point could they pay and ensure a reasonable profit for showing a smaller film?

Our theater charges $500-$700 to rent for two hours, I figure they must know what they need for the time slot so they don't lose their shirts.
 
The answer is in cable tv, not in theaters.

A new cable channel that shows indie/guerilla films only.
This cable channel will debut 99% of theses types of films.
99% of the films on this channel were never released theatrically.
This channel is marketed towards producers, not the entire population of televison watchers.
This channel is advertised in Variety, Hollywood Reprter, and other trade magazines.
This channel also features short bios of each filmmaker.

In order to get your film on this channel, you pay a fee. Couple hundred for a short film, maybe a thousand for a feature. But I dont know if that provides one showing of your film or if it puts it in limited rotation, I havent given it enough thoght yet.

But there are downsides to this idea.

I will post them later.
 
The answer is in cable tv, not in theaters.

Film Scheduling was looking at exactly that, I don't know what solutions he came to.

From what I've gathered, this is what I believe the ultimate goals are:
1) To create an independent filmmaking community that supports each other's projects in the final stages.
2) To generate public interest in this community's art.
3) To create a sustainable alternative system of venues that connect independent films with the audiences.

I don't think they are the goals, I think they are a possible approach to attain the goals.

I think the actual goals is

1) To find a way of creating enough public interest in indie film projects, so that they projects could show significant profits and estacblish the reputation of the filmmakers as credible members of the industry.

or in it's short form

I think the goal is to find a way to promote films that normally don't make it onto the film going public's shopping, list, and by that I mean films made by us,

I think directorik has a very valid point when he points out that the market isn't great at supporting films made on by relative unknowns, regardless of how well the film is made, or in my case, how large the budget.

The epihany I had earlier was similar to directorik's. I just don't beleive that as filmmakers we can generate enough publiciity for individual film projects, especially if we need to do that once a month for a new film.

However, what if we each persuaded a local art house theatre venue to host a three day festival event. The only difference would be that all the films would be shown digitally and that the same festival films would be shown at all the venues. In other words the festival would give the winners cinema time in LA, New York, Texas, Montrel, Sydney and any other place where an indie filmmaker wanted to host it.

This would be easier to promote because it would be a the worlds first global digital film festival and it could easily showcase twenty feature films from around the world.

I don't knopw if it is the answer, but I think it's more managable than trying to build grass roots support for film after film on a case by case basis. I don't know aobut you guys but I've got enough time problems just trying to balance putting food on the table and pull films into production.

At least with "Indiefest" or "Digi-World," or whatever the hell we call it, it's a once a year commitment that won't take over from filmmaking.
 
clive said:
I think directorik has a very valid point when he points out that the market isn't great at supporting films made on by relative unknowns, regardless of how well the film is made, or in my case, how large the budget.

The epihany I had earlier was similar to directorik's. I just don't beleive that as filmmakers we can generate enough publiciity for individual film projects, especially if we need to do that once a month for a new film.

.

...right now I am just going to give my thoughts on this, and I will go to 'lets get serious about distribution' but it is almost 5:00am and I need to :sleep:

...I agree that the market isn't great at supporting films mad by relative unknowns, however, I do think that there is a small but growing audience that just wants to see a good film. If I didn't believe that, I would sell my equipment and go into God knows what as a profession. You wouldn't believe how many people I know who LOVE the film 'Pi'. That is about as unknown and indie as any film can possibly get. Agreed that many people will always go for that which is not especially 'indie', but the quality of the indie film can be, should be, will be as good as the large budget fare.

We won't, I don't think, be able to change what people want to see exactly, people still want to see the love story or the dance movie or the 25-hot-young-actors-in-one-film movie but I think the point is to open some minds so that maybe a little film will get a chance at being made, shown and promoted.

...another point is to show a different perspective and to showcase different voices. For example, and yes I know this was a Hollywood film, however 'Barbershop' was a different look at African Americans for a change . Also 'Eve's Bayou' and 'Daughters of the Dust', a film that deserved to be made. There are other stories to be told. If it were not for indie films there would have been no Daughters of the Dust, no 'Pi'. I don't think films like that would necessarily come out of the Big Machine. To have someone say 'yeah, that's a good idea, but we can't sell it, so we won't make it' would have killed those films. To me, 'indie' makes it possible to try a crazy idea like 'Pi' and possibly find an audience.

...and I agree that to try to get behind one film would probably not work so well, when I think it over. I like the idea of a 'Indiefest' though. It could be a big deal for a small theater, done once a month or every few months.

--spinner :cool:
 
Hey look! A grown up discussion. :cool: Wonderful!

When you say 'underground' do you mean 'grass roots'? :huh: Underground, at least to me, means you don't want a lot of people to know about it. That's not what we want is it?

We have one theater here in Grand Rapids that plays indie films. I've heard local movie makers are more than welcome to show their stuff. Last year's winner of the 24 hour (maybe it was 48 hours) film got a good showing and some not too bad publicity.

Our public access cable channel, like most others, is run by a University. You won't have a problem getting your indie movie on there as long as it has a G in the rating some where.

So, "what if" we use Internet distribution. I keep reading in Wired mag how all the experts say Internet distribution is the wave of the future with music and movies and how Hollywood is dead set against even looking at the idea. "What if" the new indie industry embraces it?

Music success stories are trickling in. Bands are getting a following by offering a few songs for free or under a dollar. Seems to me peeking interest in indie films could be as easy as a web site. Either have the whole thing downloadable for $ or teasers and a schedule of where it's playing and maybe a "how to" get a movie playing locally for those without indie theaters.

I know how awful a reduction of picture quality must sound to someone who took the time and money to use real film.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top