...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?

...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.

This is not a sarcastic post.

See what funchie did, he got everything thinking.

Ws it funchie? Or fungus?

Whats that kids name again?

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.

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:

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.

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?
...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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

...well, I think, to distribute: sure, use the net, to make it available to purchase: sure, use the net. To SHOW? Naah, I think a movie/film should be seen on a big screen, not on a 24" screen...

--spinner :cool:

For what it's worth in the overall scope of this discussion - I talked with the owner of a 600 seat cinema here in town (it's divided into 2 300-seat theaters, so two features playing at a time.)

One of his biggest concerns over running indie films is advertising. Clearly it's a heavy expense, and a major determining factor in (a) whether the movie is money maker in his theater; (b) how long he can afford to dedicate a screen film.

As an example (I'm not commenting about the film itself), Farenheit 911 was a huge success here in town. The chain theaters didn't run it and there was a huge amount of word-of-mouth advertising. Print (newspaper) advertising, at first anyway, was limited but still the little theater here in town was packed almost every showing.

Successfully creating an underground "buzz" surrounding a movie or two would be an interesting experiment. I think it can be done effectively and for almost no cost.

Oh good one Steve. I think it's a wonderful idea to go ask these theaters. I'm going to do that too. ;)

Successfully creating an underground "buzz" surrounding a movie or two would be an interesting experiment. You mean something like a clacker in the audience of a stage play who claps to get everyone else clapping? Artificially generated buzz?

Hey everyone,

I'm new to this forum, and I probably wouldn't have registered except for these conversations about the indie filmmaking industry. However, I read about half of the posts under the "it's time for a new independent movie industry" thread and was amazed at how quickly that degenerated into bickering.

Anyway, I'm just a college student but I've been studying the film industry in Senegal, West Africa, for a total of about three months over the past year. If you think you guys have it tough in the States or Europe, imagine what it's like trying to produce a film in a developing country. There are amazing scripts, respected directors, technical talent, but the money is completely missing. The films that actually have been produced, usually with foreign money, tend to outshine most American and European independent films, at least on a creative level. But there are still huge untapped creative resources there, just begging for a chance.

But to get back to the subject at hand, I'm going to throw a bit of an academic curveball into this discussion: One of the basic principles I've been working with in this research is that film or audiovisual industries must adapt to their particular social, economic, political and cultural settings. Hollywood did this at the beginning of the 20th century in the United States. It industrialized filmmaking for the first time with the studio system, and created practices for making cinema more efficient to produce, distribute, and exhibit. Since it worked so well, most people accept it as the best possible system, and other industries in the world, including the Western indie industry, use Hollywood as their benchmark.

Well, the situation in the United States and elsewhere in the world has changed and is continuing to change. I do not believe that Hollywood is still the most effective possible system, and the evidence is in the problems that it is currently facing. Piracy is becoming worse, as is the shift away from theaters and towards video distribution. Special effects no longer draw in huge crowds, because it's something people now take for granted. Hollywood can't even use it's star system effectively anymore; producers are packing their films with stars and still not getting the expected audiences. And perhaps most importantly, digital technologies have put so much power in the hands of the public that there's no real incentive for Hollywood to spend millions on an interesting film that doesn't rely on heavy special effects or specific star actors. Everything else can be done with a fraction of that budget, as I'm sure many of you can attest to.

So, to summarize, I think Hollywood as we know it is dying, or at least it's going to have to undergo some significant changes to survive. So maybe that's what will happen, and we'll just hit a rough spot for a couple of years until they get their act together. But what excites me is that this means there really is a chance for a new type of industry to develop, one that is willing to go where Hollywood won't, and willing to reconceptualize the film industry in general. My experience in Senegal has given me some ideas, and one of them seems like it might actually work. But I also think it's interesting to see that other people are trying to brainstorm some concepts. I think it's great, and I think the best ideas will come out when people are willing to let slide some firmly-held beliefs about how the industry is supposed to work. It's an awful cliche, but keep thinking outside the box... or maybe the boxoffice!

Alex

Anyway, I'm just a college student but I've been studying the film industry in Senegal, West Africa, for a total of about three months over the past year. If you think you guys have it tough in the States or Europe, imagine what it's like trying to produce a film in a developing country. There are amazing scripts, respected directors, technical talent, but the money is completely missing. The films that actually have been produced, usually with foreign money, tend to outshine most American and European independent films, at least on a creative level. But there are still huge untapped creative resources there, just begging for a chance.

I completely agree, which why I'm in the process of trying to set up a co-production with filmmakers and actors in Ghana for my next project.

I think actually Africa has a better chance of breaking the Hollywood business model than we do in the West. This has already happened in Nigeria where films are sold direct to the customer on VHS via market stalls and hairdresssing salons. The problem is with this market is that it has no potential at all at the moment to break out into international markets, it's a completely home grown market.

Personally I think a low cost digital cinema chain in many African countries has a real chance of sucess, especially if they also duplicate and sell tapes/dvds direct to the public as part of the business.

I think Africa could boom as far as digital film production goes, especially if we can find ways to keep the profits in the countries of origin.

I'd like to talk more about this.

I think the idea of an affiliation of independent filmmakers to exploit digital venues in local cinemas is a great idea. I think it is good enough idea for me to make a cash contribution when the time comes. I hope its not just talk. Elly

I see a potential for this to work, not just for art pictures, or huge budget indies ( > $1000 ;) )...but for smaller fare as well. No name people you know kind of stuff. Facts:

1. theater chains pay to show movies hoping for a return on the investment at the box office.
2. indy filmmakers currently pay to make their films which mostly (no research here) aren't financially beneficial to them or their productions companies/investors.
3. indy filmmakers have to pay to enter film fests after going broke to make a (hopefully) break-even movie.
4. only the successful festival entries become financially viable
5. commercial films succeed initially through media blitzes

(don't corect me if I'm wrong...I've done no research)

If you could talk a local theater (second run, cheap seats, arthouse...whatever) into commiting to playing 2 indie screens per week/day/whatever. If they invest in a digital projector (office max < $1000) and a dvd player. We give (contracts for screening, no up front cost for them) them our movies on dvd to screen and take %50 (negotiable) of the box office.

You also talk to the local paper about this plan once the screenings are in place and see if they would want to have a set place in their entertainment section to advertise the films being screened that week.

If we get a network of these theaters and they stay in contact with each other about films that are selling well, the films that screen well could make a circuit...or do simultaneous screenings if big enough. this goes back to the 2 screenings a week...one is one of the wider distribution films and the other is a new/local thing.

a screening could be considered:

a feature
a short + a feature
3-4 shorts

These don't necessarily all have to be from the same producer/director either.

The filmmaker wins by having a venue they don't have to pay for
The theater wins by having films they can screen for free that no one else has
The circuit wins by having test marketing done in the originating theater
The newspaper wins by having readers digging through their newspaper scanning ads to try to find out what's playing this week
The community wins by promoting art in their community

There is also a possibilty that the theaters can apply for grants for donating space/equipment to the filmmaking community under state arts grants.

Now this stuff can be shot down...all these ideas take is one motivated individual to get every thing going in each community...we could all then reconvene here and get contact info shared for each of the theaters/programs involved. Box numbers vs. population can be measured to determine marketability of the films to share throughout the circuit.

a feature
a short + a feature
3-4 shorts

...this is what they used to do, kind of: back in the day they would show a newsreel, a cartoon, a musical and the movie feature. Going to the movies must have been an all day event....


The filmmaker wins by having a venue they don't have to pay for
The theater wins by having films they can screen for free that no one else has
The circuit wins by having test marketing done in the originating theater
The newspaper wins by having readers digging through their newspaper scanning ads to try to find out what's playing this week
The community wins by promoting art in their community
...that's what I'm talking about! There are so many ways we can become a part of the community in terms of offering something cultural to the areas we are in. And if the film goes big time, mores the better...


There is also a possibilty that the theaters can apply for grants for donating space/equipment to the filmmaking community under state arts grants.
...from the grantseeking I've been doing, I know this can be done...


Now this stuff can be shot down...all these ideas take is one motivated individual to get every thing going in each community...
...well, maybe not one, most likely not one, but I get the idea and I'm sure post-ers do, too :yes:
and to shoot down the idea is to not be thinking in a progressive manner. I hate this cliche' but we all need to think outside the box (as said here before)...


we could all then reconvene here and get contact info shared for each of the theaters/programs involved. Box numbers vs. population can be measured to determine marketability of the films to share throughout the circuit.
...who says it can't work? ...it could, you know....

--spinner :cool:

ok...your turn...here is the text of the e-mail I just sent to the local theater mega plex purveyor:

My name is Cole McDonald. I am an independent filmmaker in the St. Cloud, MN area.

I've been considering how my film will be distributed when I'm finished and have found some missing opportunities for both filmmakers and theaters. I am only trying to determine interest at this point, there are many factors to be considered.

The current model for theaters as I understand it:

Studio makes and markets a film
Theaters pay to get a copy of the film to play (for a set amount of time?)
Theaters use the box office take to produce ROI
Theaters supplement Box Office revenues with concessions
When the Movie is replaced in the primary theater, Movie is moved to a second run house ([Local second run theater])
Box Office is used to supplement the ROI until interest wanes in the film being played
Box Office revenues from the second run house need to exceed a certain level to make any profit whatsoever (x seats/showing @ $1.50/seat + concessions)

The problems I see with the second run theater model is that by the time a movie has made it to the theater, it has been replaced by newer movies which are currently undergoing much better publicity and therefor more visible to the public. This leaves the second run theater to pick up lower income audiences and audiences who missed the film in the first run theaters.

The current model for independent filmmakers as I understand it:

Filmmaker raises money and gathers interest in a project
Filmmaker invests time and money into a project that may or may not succeed
Filmmaker completes project and pays to apply to film festivals to get screen time for their labors
Filmmaker tries to make enough money to pay back the investors (often themselves) of the film
Filmmaker repeats the process

The problems I see with the current independent model is that by the time they have completed their project, they often have to go through a second fundraising effort to get the funding to submit to film festivals to get any screen time.

I believe these two models can come together to alleviate some of the problems of both without negatively impacting the revenue stream of the theater. If the second run theater were to sacrifice 2 showings a week of second run films, they could replace them with first run independent films, either in the form of a feature or a series of 3 or 4 short films. The Box Office for these would probably support a $4 to $5 ticket cost + concessions. If this cost is cut between the theater and the filmmaker, both will benefit from this arrangement. The costs can be significantly lowered for the theaters by using low cost digital projection (i.e. an LCD Projector and a DVD Player) and saving wear and tear on their 35mm projector.

I am currently in contact with individuals from other parts of the country who are seeking theaters to commit to the same process in their towns which would generate a distribution channel for films that aren't currently being seen anywhere other than film festivals. The Box Office take for a particular film could be weighed against the population of an area to generate a metric of the films popularity. This metric could be applied to a threshold beyond which the films in question would be sent to other theaters in the channel. This would offset the risk for the theaters and encourage filmmakers to maintain a level of quality for the works being distributed. Since The items being shipped are DVD's, the cost is low enough that distribution can be the responsibility of the filmmaker. This will still be less expensive than a festival entry for them. At this point, one of the showings per week would be local fare and the other would be from the distribution chain.

Details would definitely need to be discussed. Specifically; content allowed, revenue division, projection equipment acquisition and public interest in the endeavor.

Please take the time to consider this proposal and let me know whether to pursue this idea through you or elsewhere.

Cole McDonald

p.s. I believe that [the local university] may have some screenings of selected independent/foreign works, but I feel the public and the filmmakers would like to have the experience of the pleated red curtains on the wall and real live concessions in front of a full sized movie screen.

I'd be interested in the answer you get.

I presented a similar scheme to the UK Film Council. There was response was very negative and a lot of feedback was about cinemas not being sure about three things:

1) Whether there were enough films out there worth showing to justify the expense (Their arguement is that if a film is good enough it will get mainstream distribution)
2) They weren't convinced that audiences would turn out to see films that they'd never heard of.
3) They were doubly unsure that audiences would pay to watch films projected of DVD with low cost projection systems, when their home TV/cinema set ups would probably deliver better pictures.

Any scheme that is going to suceed has to overcome the above objections. Of which the two most important are

1) Are there enough films that haven't got distribtion, but are good enough to make an audience feel like they've got their monies worth? (Yes isn't an answer, we'd need evidence)
2) What's the marketing strategy going to be, bearing in mind that there is no publicity budget for this project.

I've got two established/large city cinema venues I could put films into right now, but right as of this moment I've got no films to put into them.

I think maybe this kind of project needs a test run before scaling up. Instead of going into a full time weekly, international distribution of multiple films we could look at seeing if we could build a buzz for just one feature and maybe three shorts as a package.

For the right film I'd be willing to set up a showing in the my part of the UK and to send out a few press releases.

So, has anyonw got a film that fits the bill and how many of us are up for doing this for real, just once to see what happens?

I'll lend a hand where needed, Clive.
I'm not sure how much I would be able to do, but even if it's as simple as promoting an event, I'd dedicate my time and effort just to see what kind of respose we'd get.

Response was quite negative. I'll be shopping around at other venues in town.

When you buy a ticket to see a movie in a movie theater, it's clear that your money is not going directly to the producer of the film. The theater takes a piece to cover its operation costs and profit, the distributor takes a piece, and the producer takes a piece.

Now, let's theoretically imagine that the idea people have been talking about - showing indie films in movie theaters - actually worked AND neither the movie theater nor the distributor (if there even is one) take any of the ticket revenue for themselves - it all goes to you, the indie film producer. Of course, things like spreading the word about your movie are up to you. And just for the sake of argument, let's say that theoretically your movie was playing nation-wide this way, but of course, the only people who are going to show up are people who have seen your marketing in some way, or maybe a few random stragglers.

So here's the hypothetical question: how much would you charge people per ticket? Maybe estimate how big your film budgets are, how many people you think you could reach with your own marketing, and what sort of profit, if any, you'd like to make; of course, also think about how a higher price is more likely to turn away potential viewers, and how a lower price may provide for better exposure to you for your next project, even if this time you don't earn quite as much.

So, any estimates? Maybe just throw out some rough budgets and anticipated number of viewers?

Thanks,
Alex

There would absolutely have to be a cut for the theater...they have wages to pay, electricity/environmentals and insurance to have the theater run at all. I'm not sure what the demand would be in other markets...or this one for that matter. This would be related to the amount of marketing we would do locally...once I get a commitment of interest from a theater, I'm going to hit up the local news papers as a local interest story/entertainment piece...post flyers, hand out literature to the theater/film department at the local college...talk to other art houses and theaters (stage types) about letting people know or handing out fliers/posting in their publications/fliers. We used to promote local punk shows this way...fliers made at kinko's and hand distributed leaving us with full houses to recoup the cost of the advertising and the rest got split between the bands and the venue.

Once this becomes a regular thing that has a regular audience, the marketing can be lessened and the audience size should be self sustaining. This isn't a let's make sure everybody's film gets on the screen...this is a let's start considering how to get exposure for film makers who want to make movies for wider audiences. The successful movies will sell sufficiently to be sent out to the rest of the distribution channel that is created. This would be based on a metric based on box office take per capita of a population center. This would give a number that could be applied to a metric that is based on audience acceptance of a picture rather than the distributors bias.

$4-$5 / ticket should be able to cover...the cheap seats in town now is charging $1.50 per seat. At $4 / seat...the theater is making more than they do at their normal prices with a 50% cut.

OK. I think this might help.

In the UK the cinema hires the film print, usually for a week's run. For this they pay £250 ($450) plus 25% of the box office receipts. The actual figures on this can vary, with blockbuster films demanding more on the front end or a larger percentage. The cinemas agree because they know those films will bring in enough people for them to make a little bit.

With indie films, the problem with cinema distribution has always been that distributors don't to invest in multiple film prints (Large expense) and the publicity needed to generate an audience. This is especially true when the large chains of cinemas don't take indie film (rarely happens) and this restricts the number of potential venues. So in the UK you might be looking at 100 posible venues. For the distributor, if every indie venue takes the film they are looking at a return of only £25,000. That wouldn't even cover the cost of the film print plus marketing.

Some cinemas do show films off DVD, for private parties. They hire them for £80 a night from a specialist distributor and the these are all major release back catalogue.

Cinemas are nervous about any lowering of the projection standards and use 35mm projection as the baseline. I've got venues where that isn't a consideration, but they don't pull the same kind of audiences.

So in real terms this means that a cinema space has to generate at least $100 in a single showing to cover the film costs and then they also have high fixed costs, so my guess is that you'd have to double that and then provide at least 50% of the take to make the cinema happy. I think you're looking at having to offer $200 plus 50% to get a mainstream cinema venue interested. At $5 a seat you are looking at a minimum of forty customers just to cover these basic costs and every customer over that figure is worth $2.50 to you. Out of that $2.50/per you have to take your running and publicity costs. Which gives you the classic business dilema "How much money to I have to spend on publicity in order to make back the money I spent on publicity?"

So, if you decide to take $1 per for marketing and you aim to get 140 paying punters in to see the film (Doubtful) that means you have $100 marketing budget and I don't think that's anywhere enough to do the job.

I'll write more on this later, but I've got to go now.

I guess I could relate our marketing strategy for our first screening of MB3K.
We started out with word of mouth, emails, postings on forums, industry boards such as mandy.com, etc.
For about 2k (CAN) we printed 2000 large posters, 2000 color paper posters and about 4000 black and white posters, plus 4000 6"x4" handouts with all the info on them.
The director and I went out on two huge posting runs downtown, where we covered 5 major streets in Toronto. Every day I went out for a few hours re-posting the ones that were torn down by the city.
The venue we screend at, The Bloor Cinema, had a monthly newspaper, which gave us a picture and synopsis (ironically I submitted a "high concept" and a "synopsis" and it was published as "High Concept: yadda yadda, synopsis: Macbeth yadda yadda")
I sent press kits to the big free newpapers, NOW magazine and EYE magazine. From those, and the Bloor newsletter, we were listed on every movie listing website I know of, from Tribute, on down to an Ottawa listing webpage.
I handed out our cards to practically everyone I passed on the streets, even hitting up a line-up for a Zwan (Billy Corgan) concert with about 200 people in line.
When posting, we talked to quite a few people on the street, including some fellow filmmakers! Street networking!
We advertised in University areas, highly populated areas, etc. Taget market stuff.
We had two different posters printed with different looks, and alternated every pole.
Asked a few store-owners if we could post some posters and leave some handouts on the counters.

All in all, we had around 500 people show up, which just allowed us to break even. We had rented the cinema for $800, and booked a bar for the after party for $1000.
At $7 a ticket, we sold the soudntrack ($10), leftover posters (with autographs) ($5) (or unsigned for $3), and a few other things.
The cinema only took the full consession money, and we got 100% of the ticket sales.
There were many family, friends, cast/crew there... but lots of people just walking in off the streets. I wish I knew a breakdown of what form of ads worked best, but it was a hectic night.
We then had our Drama/English teacher introduce us, and we threw some MB3K T-shirts into the crowd. I hope the people that got them wear them from time to time.
Youngcuts Intenational Festival helped us by putting our trailer up on thier site before we had sent them our submission, and that helped a whole lot- thanks Peter if you come here!
And other than all that, I put away my shame and made sure to mention MB3K in almost everything I did.

Well, that was our first screening. I guess anyone else who arranged thier premiere (like the Whitewash folks) could post thier methods and results, and perhaps we'll find a common denominator.

The part I seemed to have ignored is the theater recouping the money they would have made playing the movie they are not currently playing. I was figuring the profit...but not the fact that they are not purchasing the print...but paying for a limited time run of the film. They would have to make at least that to make it a viable source of revenue...back to the books.

@spat...I think the common denominator is $$$. There will always be a potential outlet for the film given enough money. The part I'm trying to do would make both parties come out ahead where the filmmaker wouldn't have to spend as much to get distribution (DVD's are cheap). And the theaters wouldn't have to pay for the films to run...but they've already paid for the film to run...and my showing would interrupt that revenue stream. I'd need to be able to offset that loss.

I'm trying to find a way to get a sustainable distribution chain that's affordable for the filmmaker, the public and the theaters that run it.

Cinemas around the world all want the same thing! They want to be the first to show the hotest film around! You can be sure they will expect big names with a good track record at the box office and hopefully they will cash in. However this is not good news for the unknown indie filmaker and people are always wary of things they do not know. For example when i started printing postcards from my own photographs, i marketed my work by canvassing local independent shops and recieved a tentative response saying at best "i shall give them a try first with about a dozen..." and some of these shops did not want to pay for them until they had sold it. However when my postcards had all sold out within a week, their attitude towards me became "very respectful" because money talks in every language.

Cinemas are wary of unknown films with an unknown cast because they think it will not sell, but if you refer back to my experience with the postcards i seriously think that we indie filmakers do not sell ourselves enough. But you can always canvass a cinema and we can build our contacts worldwide via this web site.

But the most important aspect is the content of your film because thats what the viewer pays to see. Think of a film as a sales package that will make an impact and create lots of free publicity for itself. It pays to be controversial and shocking because viewers will talk about it. Recently i wrote a stage play called "Worse Than Hell" which is about the Devil releasing four actors from eternal purgatory to produce the most blasphemous show in history! One scene includes Jesus coming down from heaven and having sex with a blonde lovedoll called Margaret!!! It has not got into a theatre yet but it generated a huge interest on the web...

Also i think its a good idea to invite as many hairdressers to your premiere as possible because they spend all day talking into peoples heads...

The thing is, there is a NEED in the industry for this and I can't believe that there is not an indie cinema distributor. I can understand that if the indie filmmaker doesn't have money to pay for for the distributor that the distributor would have to believe the film will make money.

I think that the indie film industry, as a whole, is getting more and more popular.

Have you ever thought about renting a screen and promoting the film yourself. I'm sory that I haven't read this entire thread, but I know that's an option at a theater here. They will rent one of their big screens for $5000 for the day or maybe it's 2 days. There will need to be a lot of butts in seats to cover that bill! AND that's just 1 theater :( so that may not be what you want. There is a good point though, perhaps you can interview the movie goers and get their thoughts as they exit. I've seen that done before.

But are there theater distributors that cater to indie films?

Indie cinemas!

Like I've mentioned before, there's a Toronto cinema with the works- it's own newsletter, listings in all major newspapers, etc.

For a weeknight prices are around $650 a screening. Weekends go as high as $900. Sundays are cheaper.
That's not too bad- especially for an 850 seat venue.

The thing is, there is a NEED in the industry for this and I can't believe that there is not an indie cinema distributor.

I think that the indie film industry, as a whole, is getting more and more popular.

But are there theater distributors that cater to indie films?


Coot--there must be distributors for indie (theater) films because there are indie theaters scattered about. I know of the Angelika and the Film Forum in NYC. I believe there is also one in Philadelphia (but I can't recall the name).

As a side note--my wife and I honeymooned in NYC and we (being the movie buffs we are) went to see Trainspotting and Welcome to the Dollhouse at the Angelika when they were in their theatrical runs.

But I think the sad reality is -- indie theater is not ready to survive on a grand scale because the general public just isn't interested. Lately, the term 'indie' has been used and abused by the movie industry as a marketing gimic much in the same way that all pop music got labeled 'alternative' in the early nineties. The 'indie' movies that are making it big-time in the Hollywood scene usually don't look very 'indie' to me. More on sad reality -- there is a reason Hollywood keeps churning out the same stuff over and over again...people keep buying it. That's what we are used to, so that's what we come to expect. Small pockets of people (like the members of this board) might get fed up and seek out something different, but small pockets of people scattered about are not enough to effect an overhaul of the industry...or for that matter, to bring about a new industry to compete at the same level.

Ultimately, it takes marketing to drive the people to your product. This is where the indie scene is challenged the most (and Clive has discussed this in much greater depth and detail in other posts on this same subject). Indie film promoters don't expect tremendous revenue from indie films, so they can't afford to market it in the same way as major studios can. Little marketing budget = low public awareness = poor product performance.

I just read back what I wrote and I realize I sound very negative. I will have to think on this some more and try to work on possible solutions (just for fun!).

I agree with you John, but on the flip side;

Indie-filmmakers don't spend as much on thier films as Hollywood = Our advantage.

We just need to figure out a way to lower the cost of marketing (using the internet) and we'll survive! For a feature that spends under $50,000- the goal of profit is definitely attainable! It's just about getting the word out there without being bought out by the hollywood system. Too many indie-flicks get "re-made" by Hollywood, instead of being released "as is".
If we can find a way to effectively market indie movies without selling rights- that's where the gold is!

I'd say we start on the web- move to DVD distribution, and eventually limited theatrical release... I dunno about you guys, but I don't need to make millions- just enough to get by to the next film... and if we can double our budgets on DVD sales alone, then why not?

What do you guys think about this idea: Any indie flicks who plan on self-distributing can group up and split the cost for a set of DVDs- those DVDs contain all the trailers to the other flicks, and when one person from the group sells a copy, they ship a "trailer" DVD as well?
I guess it's a form of marketing- would it be worth it?

That is acrually a great idea Spatula.

What I have in my head after reading your post is just that, a group. That group will then add their trailers to the each others DVD's. So in the special features section there would be thetrailers.

How would each member in the group for sure know that their trailer is on everyone's DVD and vice, versa... Unless it's a 3rd party burning them. Plus making posters, post cards, and other SWAG.

I'd say we start on the web- move to DVD distribution, and eventually limited theatrical release... I dunno about you guys, but I don't need to make millions- just enough to get by to the next film... and if we can double our budgets on DVD sales alone, then why not?

My thinking has always been that the cinema end of the deal would be part of the marketing strategy to drive direct DVD sales.

My current thinking is that a web site (let's for the sake of arguement call it "indiecinema") would sell DVD's direct to the public. The main difference would be that rather than restricting the usage of the DVd we would actively encourage people who buy to run "indiecinema" events. This means anyone who buys a DVD can set up a venue and show the film in their area. They can even make a profit from it, because they don't pay anymore than the $10 they paid to buy the DVd online.

However on the front of every DVD is a promo for the direct DVD sales and trailers for other films. This is what drives the sales.

In real terms there is no reason why a set up like Custon-Flicks could serve this kind of set-up reducing the cost even further for the filmmaker.

We're then talking abut a simple proposition, changing the DVD sales contract and having a website that acts as a sales ptich for the concept.

The concept, "You can run your own indie cinema and get films for no more than $10"

I don't know, this is as far as I've got with this.

How would each member in the group for sure know that their trailer is on everyone's DVD and vice, versa... Unless it's a 3rd party burning them. Plus making posters, post cards, and other SWAG.

I'd imagine there would have to be a third party involved anyway- point is, if enough features combine resources and pitch the idea to a small mastering/duplication service, we'll get loads of discounts.
I've been looking into duplication, and it's roughly $3000 for 2000 DVDs. That's a huge profit margin at $10 a DVD.

They can even make a profit from it, because they don't pay anymore than the $10 they paid to buy the DVd online.

That might be a good incentive- but I think you'd want to keep track of where the movie is screening somewhere- that's where places like Indietalk might come in hand- a place to advertise your screenings...
But what if an indie-theatre owner purchased a DVD and held a screening every week?
I don't think that would increase DVD sales- my thoughts are it would be difficult to control, or there would be some legal aspects conflicting.
There could be a set of options though- own the DVD for $10, or "Rent" the rights for a month for $100 (which is still a fair price! And they get to keep the DVD!).
I dunno- just trying to fuel this fire- this was a great discussion!

NO! This IS a great discussion!

In fact I just bought IndieFlics.com


Let's figure this thing out!

Let's do this... Right here, Right now!

I have been looking into duplication machines and DVD screenprinting, although the covers and books will be outsourced.

What would you like to see in a site like we are discussing? I've also been talking to the local theater here and they are open to showing an indie flic for a few days, no charge and we'd get a % of the box office.

Interesting Cootdog! Which cinema are you talking about?

Wow, Coot- Impressive proactivity there! :) Clive, Spats, etal- great idea. I have been following this thread for a while. If there's anything I can do, let me know. Don't know how much help I'd be, but this is a great idea.

It's a local cinema here in Elgin, IL. I have been thinking about doing a film festival there since there are hotels nearby and they have 20 screens I believe. I'm not ready to do a fest right now, but perhaps sometime soon. It would be WAY cheaper than Chicago.

But yes, I want to develop a business plan for this and figure out how you all think we should get this started. I want it to be a community thing.

Coot- business planning is something I know how to do. Wrote a biggie a few years ago for the family real estate business- got $120k. The banker surprisingly, suggested I should template and sell my plan- said it was the best he'd ever seen. I was completely floored as it was my first one.

Not trying to toot my horn (very much). Just thinking of ways to help you.

Well I've written a few myself BUT time for me is VERY small. I think that we could discuss it here and then all that can go into the plan...

What do you all think.

Our cinema in town offers (brand new) digital dvd projection for ~US$1000 for 2 off hour screenings. If I were to do something in town here, which I would love, I would need to either find a sponsor for it, or make sure the box office take would cover that cost. I would like to see "real" indie film (no offense to the big budget folks out there) legitimized by getting this going. On a purely selfish note, I'm hoping my movie would do well enough to make it to the circuit (Assuming we're blending all of these ideas for a distribution channel here).

I would think with as many different ideas that have come up, once the footings are in place, we should get the specifics on paper so the expectations are consistent.

Assuming we're blending all of these ideas for a distribution channel here.

I would think with as many different ideas that have come up, once the footings are in place, we should get the specifics on paper so the expectations are consistent.

I think that's exactly what we're trying to do, at least that's what I want...

So I hypothetically, I get a chain of 10 cinema's you get 5, someone gets 2, and so on to get about 25 cinema's willing to do a short run on an indie film. So then what?

They run the film for 3 days and keep the Box Office up to the rental amount then the remaining amount is pure profit to Indie Flics, which would in turn cut a check to the filmmaker/producer/whatever?

So 25 cinemas show an indie film for 3 days, say for easy reference 3 times a day. That's 225 showings.
Then we'll say 100 people in seats per show paying an average of $8.00 = $180,000

Even if rental costs $100,000 that's still a chunk of change. AND more important, you had over 20,000 people see the flic.

The main thing that's needed for that to be a success is promotions and publicity!
It has to be played up in the local media where these theaters reside.

So what's needed for that? a promotions package to each theater including posters, stickers, and other swag?

BUT now we're talking about the big time and while I have contacts to do the swag (promotions) it all costs money. So is there a fee that we'd have to charge for this? Do we hand pick the films?

Then after the release in the theaters what will we do, offer them on Amazon, Netflix, IndieFlics, etc? :hmm:


And Lilith, I'm ALL FOR you writing the business plan!

There's an independent cinema (the Paramount) about a half hour from me in Fremont, OH. They usually surprisingly, have first run A list Hollywood fare. I will approach them next week about this idea, once I have recovered from my shoot this weekend.

Also, there's a well known indie cinema in Cleveland- Cinemateque I think. They do lots of indie films already. They also do great public domain film screenings. That is the kind of market where you could reliably sell 100 per show.

Also, a smaller venue is Talkies Film & Coffee Bar in the Market District in Cleveland. They only seat 40 I think, but they'd love the publicity.

what I was thinking was that the local cinema would determine the commercial viability of a given film based on box/population. New films would be publicized locally by the filmmakers if at all, and Above a certain box/pop metric, it would hit the circuit with the fanfare that went with that. That way the channel itself determines where to spend the money.

There could also be a middle metric that has stuff go national/international without the publicity to see if it is commercially viable in a venue other than it's home court...or perhaps local premeires, then distant screening to determine commercial viability (to get rid of home court advantage).

This would allow the swag to be purchased based on better odds of financial success and still allow just about anyone to get their movie screened. Could be marketed as having the audience be the jury with voting cards to rate movies in the metric showing or something. Winners there go on to national distribution with all the publicity that surrounds that.

I shall send a letter to the Hull screen cinema (UK) about this distribution idea and let you all know of my findings. However i believe it will only effectively work if you get the cinema on a "no sales no fee" meaning we take a percentage of the box office (example we take 15%, the cinema takes 85%).

With digital distribution becoming more widespread it can only lower the costs much to our benefit...

Knightly,

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here... So we have a film, say "Earth Pulse" that has been completed by an indie. Their home town is in Paris, ID where there is no digital cinema. Without a local cinema, how could they use IndieFlics?
So "Earth Pulse" is sent to IndieFlics but since there's no cinema in Paris, ID they would have to premeir it at the cinema in our network located in Boise, ID?

Are you saying to do a test at one local cinema and get the demographics. Then from that information and the results of the screening, release that info the the network of cinema's and have them choose if they want to show the film or not?


What I was thinking was that IndieFlics would be the resource the indie filmmakers could use to get their film on the big screen.

I just contacted some of the local theater HQ's that are located near me and DAMN! :eek: I didn't realize how many were in their networks!

Name/Screens/Cinemas
Century Cinemas/?/12
Marcus Theatres/468/44
Kerasotes Showplace/522/81
Regal Entertainment Group/3656/304
Nova Cinemas/71/15
Goodrich/293/35
Cinemark/2979/275 sites in US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru :eek:

I mean DAMN! and I found a great place that lists all the above information. Some of the smaller joints are not in there but check out this link: http://www.cinematour.com/circuits.php

Knightly,

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here... So we have a film, say "Earth Pulse" that has been completed by an indie. Their home town is in Paris, ID where there is no digital cinema. Without a local cinema, how could they use IndieFlics?
So "Earth Pulse" is sent to IndieFlics but since there's no cinema in Paris, ID they would have to premeir it at the cinema in our network located in Boise, ID?

Are you saying to do a test at one local cinema and get the demographics. Then from that information and the results of the screening, release that info the the network of cinema's and have them choose if they want to show the film or not?


What I was thinking was that IndieFlics would be the resource the indie filmmakers could use to get their film on the big screen.

Yes...that is what I'm saying. This way the filmmaker gets at least x guaranteed screenings of their film. X being the number of times that has been established to metric the film.

After that, audience reaction becomes the indicator for a films success, the audiences vote with their money in the distribution channel. These numbers are kept by a group of folks who release those numbers to the channel...If the individual theater is screening a particular film really well, they can choose to keep playing it, where the other theaters can pull it after the screening obligation is met or the film falls below the metric overall. Part of this ends up being part of what people don't like about hollywood, the filmmaker who wants to make money and keep the film in the channel (this is a business after all) will need to make commercially viable films (this doesn't necessarily mean hollywood fluff - which I like, but interesting, well shot and edited films). It will push the low/no budget expectations up and make the industry more visible by the mainstream. It also will make another avenue by which talent agencies can scout new folks to represent. Good for us (indie filmmakers) as well as we get more exposure with less out of pocket expenses.

The content would be submitted with a $5-20 fee (TBD) and the filmmaker would get a cut of the box for each screening of their film. Possibly cut of net after expenses for putting this all together (theater rental, promotion, etc). If the film is liked by the public, the filmmaker will continue to recieve $$$, if not, it stays in the channel for whatever theme nights we may hold or whatever. They will continue to get residuals as the movies are screened.

WOW!

...I didn't realize that this thread was still going! Some great ideas (I had to re-read this thread) Here are some of my thoughts...

...first, as great an idea this is, guys, get something on paper. You need a proposal of some sort, a really good game plan, and some people to do this even on a small scale. So, before everyone runs to the local theater, remember to be able to answer all the questions they might have. If the theatres are negative, as some have said, then there must have been a reason for them to say no. Be able to counter the 'no' with a better yes...

...as for seed money, which we would need, there are grants....

...I also went over some of the posts that I had yet to read:

...one question was: 'How do you advertise? (paraphrasing) This is where Hollywood kicks ass, months of advertising and some magazines cover this stuff for free". Oh, yeah? Then allow me to retort...

...since this is going to be a HUGE undertaking:
In Detroit, the local indie paper is called the Metro Times, in Chicago, The Reader, in NY the Village Voice, in Toronto, the Eye or Now. Who says its not possible to get the Association of independant Newsweeklies (yes, there is a group and they are online for most large cities) Who says they can't get on board this idea? Free ads for credit in the film (Credit rolls are long anyway) credit in the film and recognition in the theater for their involvement? Spat said he advertised in the Toronto papers. They already kind of do this, maybe step things up alittle. This would make strides in creating a society bigger than just our neighborhoods. There's your advertising...

...maybe this could even be expanded into a 'filmmakers forum' in the indie papers to let people know what is ready to be released or distributed, what is in production, pre-production; who needs help, crew, equipment, actors. I know that this goes away from the film stuff a little, but we have to at least let our dreams extend beyond our immediate reach. Besides, its just an idea right now...

...somewhere I also read that the theatres would have to keep in touch with each other. Unless they are on-board with this idea, that's not going to happen and maybe not even if they are favorable. The footwork and 'heavy lifting' is going to have to be done by us, the filmmakers at least until it begins to show some potential. It will just be another thing we have to do ourselves. Someone will have to get on the phone. This seems like a small thing right up until something has to happen...this isn't negative, just looking at logistics.

...and the most important thing will be...altogether now...reliability of those involved...

...these are great ideas, but something has to be put on paper so that people have something in their hands to look at....

--spinner :cool:

I totally agree with you that this needs to be put on paper. I have been working on a powerpoint presentation for this idea.

If we get the idea down and sound and if Lilith is willing, she can do the plan.

The biggest part in developing this is... Who are the founders? Who is "In"? and who/how will people get paid. We are talking about a business and businesses are supposed to make money. So when money is made, we need to know how to split it all up. AND it should be talked about up front because I don't want anyone to be mad about it later.

I really think this can work, we need make a foundation and build upon that. There are problems, yes, but by everyone looking at this from different angles, it will be more sound when the building blocks begin to lay ontop of a great foundation.

Committment is huge in this. While some may only be able to give a little time and others more, we can all design this idea into a real deal that will work. And I believe it will stand the test of time. I believe that THIS can be the next big thing for Indie Filmmakers. It could evolve into a new era in cinema. Indie filmmakers need an avenue to get their films on the big screen and THIS is it. IndieFlics.com the road to your future.

But now let's get back to creating this foundation.

Wooohoooo the chatroom is back... we should schedule a time to talk about this all together!?

I need to wait till after the weekend to talk. In pre-prod. on my next short which shoots this coming weekend. Have to paint 2 rooms and have meetings. Let me know when you plan to get together in cyberspace and I will try to be there. :)

Although I'm perfectly willing to share this all with the fine IT folks here, we should move this into chat or some non-public venue until we get the business plan into action and legalized...at this point, we are exposed and risk having our ideas stolen. I may sound paranoid, but it comes from business experience.

Feel free to disagree, I will absolutely be a part of this no matter what, but that's my US$.02

While I agree with you on this, we still need to keep this open, for now, to figure out when the chat can take place and who is interested in formulating this business.

ALSO

I just received favorabale responses from Cinemark and Kerasotes.
Cinemark has one major requirement. The films have to be rated by the MPAA.

So I've been thinking, if we receive shorts, we could put the shorts into a feature length "Pod" and release that. Basically the entire Pod would be rated, if needed, instead of each individual film within.
Anyone have a film rated by the MPAA or have researched it before? If so, please share what you found.

Just to throw this into the mix, I interviewed for a job at my region's largest Art House cinema the other day. I'll hear on Monday whether I was sucessful.

If I was sucessful I'll be able to get a much clearer idea of how to dovetail indie distribution into the existing cinema networks. At least in the UK and the rest of Europe.

That is VERY promissing Clive, Good luck!

Although I'm perfectly willing to share this all with the fine IT folks here, we should move this into chat or some non-public venue until we get the business plan into action and legalized...at this point, we are exposed and risk having our ideas stolen. I may sound paranoid, but it comes from business experience.

How great would it be to have this idea stolen and have dozens of people working on developing venues and screening of indie films?

OK, I agree. I wrote down some things yesterday and I think that we are at a point to take this off the public channel. SO, Will the IT chat room allow us to create a room where only certain individuals are able to join?

I think we should possiblty do a chat this week sometime, in the evening. Let me know the day(s) available and times.

Please send me a PM with all the IM's you are on, AIM, Yahoo, MSN Messenger, etc.. and your availability this week.

OK, I agree. I wrote down some things yesterday and I think that we are at a point to take this off the public channel. SO, Will the IT chat room allow us to create a room where only certain individuals are able to join?

Yes, you can create a private room. Then, only members you invite from the main chat room can join.

OK Then let's do that.. a chat room here, that make's it easier.. just let me know the times you're all available.
Only those that PM me will be allowed into the chat.

I know that since we're all around the globe that this might be the hardest thing, getting everyone in the room together. I think that whoever want's in with this can have a copy of the chat provided.


IndieTalk, is that a possibility to save the chat? I've never done it before, that's why I ask. Just tested the save function... it works very well! BUT does it save the entire chat? like if it goes on for pages and pages?

I dunno, Coot- I think this should be a public thing- kind of like Open Source code. If by chance someone steals the idea, it's just going to create more venues for indie cinema.

I'd love to participate in the chat though- evenings are no good on my end though- except on weekends.

Well let's all discuss this and decide to keep it open to the public or not.

Weekends work for me too. Saturday night is best for me. I'm in USA GMT-6:00 (Central Time)

Just let me know and I'll try to be in here. I have teenaged kids, there is no good time...too many activities.

OK, this might be easier...

Meeting to discuss this next Saturday night starting at say.. 9:30pm Central Time (GMT-6:00)

Just making sure this time is OK for those wishing to discuss.

I have received messages from some of you saying it's a good time... just checking with the rest.

Due to a holiday obligation, I may be late to the party. Sorry about that. Daughter/Christmas Play. If I miss it, will you be able to send a file containing the conversation to me?

Yes, for sure. I'll save all the conversations so everyone will be on the same page with this awesome and momentus idea.

I'll definately try to be there, sending e-mail reminder to myself as we speak...well...as I type.

Tommorrow evening from about 5pm (American time) i shall be in "New York" if anyone wants to speak face to face.

My picture can be seen on www.ukscreen.com/screen/221 and click on submitted by Eddie Rex (in blue letters)



Bye...

So??? How was the big chat? Fill me in via PM or email when you can. Thanks!

The chat went well. I would really like to hear what others have to say.

Like WHAT do indie filmmakers NEED after their film is done or at least in post?

What do you NEED help with?

Sorry I couldn't make the discussion, I got tied up in a problem.

Like WHAT do indie filmmakers NEED after their film is done or at least in post?

I think for me there are two things I'm looking to do with any film

1) To Make enough profit to pay back on the time I've invested
2) To get lots of exposure for myself as a writer/director so that with the next film I've got a core audience who want to see it because I made it.

I think this is no different to any other business. I see myself as a brand which needs to get a high public profile in order to move my product. I want people to buy my next film because I made it. It's not a fame thing, it's a business thing.

I think this where Sonnyboo has really got it right as a film maker, he's already an established brand in the indie film making world, it's only a matter of time until that translates into something larger.

Anyhow that's what I think.

I agree, SonnyBoo is a very recognized name. The question is, how far outside the Indie community does it go? I think that he's done everything right and I'd love for his film to be seen by the public, not just the community. That's what I would like to do... spread indie films beyond the boarders of the indie community so that movie goer's around the world would be able to see our films. And so that our filmmakers can make money from the box office.

I agree, breaking out into the mainstream has to be the goal. I just think it's achieved in steps.

Indie NEEDS, hmmm...

Enough funding to create the art that's in my head.
Enough sales of tickets or dvd's that I can continue to make what's in my head.

I just want enough so that I don't feel like a complete loser because I am making films that will never be seen or make a dime. Mainstream is not so much my issue, although I certainly wouldn't turn it down. Achieving a balance between making a product and actually earning a living would be nice.

...CootDog...

...I wanted to be at the chat but the server (?) or LAN (?) was down most of the weekend and either kicked me off or wouldn't let me on at all. I think I remember someone saying that they would keep the chat so it could be viewed. I would love to see it...would've liked to have been there :grumpy: ...but I'll get over it...

...give me an overview.... and I'll answer 'what indies need' when I have more time to be online, at work right now....jiggers! the boss! bye! :lol: (j/king)

--spinner :cool:

Now, by mainstream, I don't believe we're talking about the hollywood moviemaking behemoth... More just a reference to a wider audience than we could normally get. Hollywood is trapped by having to make the films as well as show them. The problem there is that they will only approach films that will sell out of the box...format films. There are certain exceptions to this rule, but they are not the mainstay of the industry. The beauty of this system will be that the studio won't be making the determination up front of what will sell, the audience will. I'll be starting a thread in the premiere only area so it is not publically accessible information. I've had businesses stolen from me in the past and am slightly paranoid about that.

Like WHAT do indie filmmakers NEED after their film is done or at least in post?

What do you NEED help with?

...I think that it would be a good thing to find out how to publicize the film. Alot has been said about distribution, but in order to find a distributor, you need to generate some interest. I have some ideas about how to publicize my documentary, but whether or not it will actually work, who knows...

...alot has been said about music rights, maybe some info from people who have had to brave these waters so that one can know what to expect...

...how about some information on taxes? This is something I know I will have to look into very soon if by chance a get any of the grants I am applying for. I should know more about this and will be working on it...

...I heard, on the boards, that when starting a 'business', it is possible to 'write off' quite a bit of the 'upstart' expenses. Does that mean equipment? Does that mean actual expenses like mailings or office space....

...Legal advice, lots of it, reliable advice....

...I am still looking into all of these things

Hey, Coot....

...when 'you say what do you need', is this what you mean? Or do you mean in terms of actual persons who would/could do some of the actual footwork?

...lastly, I think a forum of people, such as IndieTalk types :) for moral support. I don't think it matters what kind of filmatic project you are working on, sometimes you could use a sympathetic ear. For documentaries, I read that Ken Burns says that 'documentary filmmaking is an exercise in passion and terror' (pardon my paraphrasing) I think this is true of any creative endeavor. ...and I can't tell you how appreciative I was to know that there were people who wanted to help me out even if they couldn't do so...

--spinner :cool:

Knightly, Maybe a Moderator could MOVE this to a premier section?

Mods, is that possible?

Coot--mods will review request.

Knightly has started a new thread in the Premiere Networking forum to continue this discussion. The current thread will remain in its existing location.

Thanks!

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=9264