> 2010 Independent Film Distribution & Revenue Analysis

rayw

rayw

2011 http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=37696
2013 WIP http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=45836
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FYI, when I'm not selling crack and pimping my ho's I'm a closet data compiler simply because I'm a context fuhreeeeek! (among a small set of freakdoms that I'm afflicted with, as some of you can attest to and posess yourself).


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdHh6cHJBMW5aQkZSMzZYR2V3VUxQVUE&hl=en_US


Um... I wanted to see how indie films fared.
What was their prognosis.
I'm pleasantly surprised by how many made box office profits.
I know the "official" numbers are all FUBAR, but we gotta get and use something.

Hopefully you guys can distinguish between objective and subjective data and can draw some pretty cogent conclusions.

Please share.
I'm just as interested in what you see as what I do.

Thank you.


Ray (the context fuhreeeeek)
 
Last edited:
The difficulty of tracking down information isn't the only problem -- there's also the indie films that didn't register a blip -- straight to video, unable to get any theatre action, didn't get finished, etc. And this is a pretty large group too.

On the upside, many of the films were rated high critically which ought to be a clue -- we can't compete with Hollywood on making crap, but if we make films critics like, we've a half decent chance . . .
 
GuerrillaAngel said:
The difficulty of tracking down information isn't the only problem -- there's also the indie films that didn't register a blip -- straight to video, unable to get any theatre action, didn't get finished, etc. And this is a pretty large group too.

On the upside, many of the films were rated high critically which ought to be a clue -- we can't compete with Hollywood on making crap, but if we make films critics like, we've a half decent chance . . .
Click to expand...
Hey, GA
Understood.

I guess I should explain my lofty intent.
Yes, there a bazillions of indie films (and even some studio films) that have nowhere to go but direct to video (DTV).
The overwhelming majority, really.
There's even the studios deliberately making films for DTV or PPV, like The Asylum.

What I was interested in examining were the characteristics of so-called independent films that did get theatrical release.
- Is it true that only indie films with A, B or C stars in them get distro? Pretty much, yeah.
- Is there a direct or strong correlation between a marketable star and distribution? Kinda sorta.
- Is there a direct or strong correlation between a marketable star and box office gross? Mmm... not really.
- Does a star mean a film gets better distribution? Nope.
It looks more like the story carries more interest.
Story, story, story!
And it doesn't even have to be a great product.
It seems what sells tickets best is an interesting premise - not necessarily execution.
A "great critical film" may not be very interesting no matter how well executed = poor ticket sales.
A POS 90min rubbish-fest may titillate the AJs right outta the wallets of many only to p!ss 'em off royally.
But everyone goes home smiling on this end! Gotchure money, suckaaaahs!!!!
- What's the relationship between filmmakers, distributors and theaters? It appears theater (chain) owners really watch their purse strings and do a pretty good job of understanding their local market.
They wanna put butts-in-seats (BIS) but can't afford to be ridiculously picky.
- And film festival, big or small, awards are no guarantee of diddly, either.

I know from a spec screenwriting perspective many writers think they're playing Rumpelstiltskin and churning out screenplay PDF gold. Ha!
And then filmmakers take said screenplay PDF gold and lift the "bones" of it and turn it into something they can afford to do with the cast, crew, & financing resources they have.
And the filmmakers get all giddy should anyone show any interest in distributing their film to anyone other than (charitable) family and friends.
But the theater owners can cock-block distributors just as well as financiers can do it to the director/producer, or the dir/prod can the spec screenwriter.
So, "yeah" you got a distributor. But that don't mean you're going to any more than about 170 theaters for no more than 15 weeks, on average.

If I was interested in directing &/or producing a distribution worthy feature what are my expectations, other than a glib snowball's chance in h3ll?
- Expect to spend $7m only to gross just over that.
- Don't expect Kevin Kline and Naomi Watts to magically turn sh!t into Slurpees.
slurpee.png

- To put BIS you gotta have a very good interesting premise, which may very well be why studios never picked up many of these screenplays to begin with. However, with the preponderance of writer/directors/(and a surprising number of ill-advised actors) it appears going "studio" was likely never their strong intent.
 
Last edited:
Looks interesting Ray. You think you could make the actual excel file available? I like excel. I don't really know how to navigate through this web doc to my heart's satisfaction.

thanks
aveek

Edit: Never mind. I was able to download it. Cheers
 
Last edited:
trueindie said:
Looks interesting Ray. You think you could make the actual excel file available? I like excel. I don't really know how to navigate through this web doc to my heart's satisfaction.

thanks
aveek

Edit: Never mind. I was able to download it. Cheers
Click to expand...
Hi, Aveek

Yes, you can download it as an excel file!
Pull up the doc page,
Just beneath the pretty colored "google" icon is "File",
Click that,
Goto "Download as",
Right carat pops out a list including: Excel.

Done.
You're gold!


EDIT: LOL! I just now noticed your own edit that you were able to DL it, after all. Too funny.

* * * * * *

Over the next few weeks I hope to expand this file to include additional information about the directors' past projects.
To see how their 2010 films relate to previous projects regarding size and scope and whatever serendipitous tid-bits I can tease from the analysis.

Additionally, I need to run a similar screen on 2010 feature films from both Big 6 major studios and the mini-majors.
I want to know what the characteristics of blockbusters are, how comparably budgeted films fare, and those with similar distribution patterns in both weeks and theaters.


* * * * *

So far my greatest takeaways are:

- Story is the overwhelming determinant factor of distribution projections to theaters, more so than marketable actor names, distributor muscle, and budgets.

- Indie films have a pervasive moroseness to them, which likely explains why studios don't front-end finance these works.

- The number of writer/directors is very notable, almost 80%.
 
Would it be possible to compile info on indie films that had no name actors but were successful in theaters like Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity? It would be interesting to see what genre's they belong to and if any of the successful ones belong to a non horror / slasher genre.

Also does anybody know how they got Cary Elwes to act in the first Saw?
 
At some point I'll do just that.

I'll explore micro-budget <$1m features and see what their prognosis is, which I suspect is pretty poor.

Information on DTV and VOD is very spotty, making their fates unquantifiable to provide any context.

If XX% of <$1m/no-name films go DTV or VOD... and that's all the info we have, then we can't make any sensible determination as to whether those were actually audience pleasing productions that generated a good return or were they pennies-on-the-dollar remainders?
This fall's Macy's coat rack or next spring's Big Lots racks? I dunno. Can't tell.

Unless... someone knows where I can get ahold of such intel!
That'd rock!
 
Was there feature films with less than 50,000 budgets at Sundance? I saw your list and was surprised at how many films were multi-million dollar budgets. I thought Sundance would have more lower budget indie films.
 
Problem here is that we don't have any information on the films that didn't get significant theatrical distribution. It's nice to say story or an interesting premise is the key - but how many films that didn't get theatrical release also had good stories or an interesting presence? If you want to get an accurate idea of what separates winners from losers you need to look at the whole playing field, not just the winners - unfortunately I'm not sure where you'd find that kind of information.
 
rockerrockstar said:
Was there feature films with less than 50,000 budgets at Sundance? I saw your list and was surprised at how many films were multi-million dollar budgets. I thought Sundance would have more lower budget indie films.
Click to expand...
I dunno.
I didn't check 2010 Sundance features.
Lettuce go take a look at 2011 Sundance, though... ! :)

ItDonnedOnMe said:
Problem here is that we don't have any information on the films that didn't get significant theatrical distribution. It's nice to say story or an interesting premise is the key - but how many films that didn't get theatrical release also had good stories or an interesting presence? If you want to get an accurate idea of what separates winners from losers you need to look at the whole playing field, not just the winners - unfortunately I'm not sure where you'd find that kind of information.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that absence of info is really bogging a comfortable adoption of this theoretical model.
I don't like guessing at filling in gaps and appreciate that you can spot 'em as well.
I plead nolo. :)

Yeah, if you ever run across distribution figures for anything that went to VOD or other non-theatrical or even post theatrical I'm DYIN' to see it.
Please, please, please... !!!!!

In the meanwhile, if you've got an alternate model I'm game. :yes:

This model operates under a relatively simple (meaning that of course even for a model it excludes a great deal of information, primarily unavailable information) filter assumption.
- Sundance receives 4,000 entry submissions.
- Sundance accepts 120 of those, rejecting all others for undefined reasons, presumably objective & subjective across some in-house grading matrix and also considering the festival's "theme" for that year.
(I get the slight impression that they skew selections mildly around some center point of general agreement of basic criteria. IDK for sure. Just guessin' based on errant remarks).
- Distributors select 40+ of those 120+ films thinking they can make a buck off of them.
(I'm pretty sure they're not spending money to somehow "preserve" these pieces of art as if they were some museum collection).
- Many of these distributed films don't make any profit for the distributor.
(Truth be told, without any hard numbers on what the distributor paid to the producer/studios for the film there's no way to even know if they made money on it. Distributor could have easily paid XX% on the dollar, no profit for the producer/studio at all).

That's it.

There is zero attempt to grade or evaluate films Sundance didn't even select to show.
I just have to take their word for it that they were sub-industry standard. :huh:

Oh, and the "interesting premise" model does explain both why A) so many theater owners book films, and B) why so many people pay money to see a movie they only afterwards think sucked.
They wanted to like it, but the bra came off, the falsies fell out, and I don't know WTH is going on around that waistline. Looks like Sasquatch's grandma down there. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top