So how did you monetise your film making and what were your returns? Am looking to do this by 2016 and therefore, dead curious.
So how did you monetise your film making and what were your returns? Am looking to do this by 2016 and therefore, dead curious.
When it comes to indie film marketing this quote from the article is the final word:I don't have a personal response for you, but this popped up today and I thought it might interest you. It's by Charlie Lyne who self-distributed his documentary Beyond Clueless in UK cinemas. Obviously, he has a big following as a writer/critic, but a lot of strategies worth considering that I hadn't given much thought to previously.
http://www.ultraculture.co.uk/14998-self-distirbution-beyond-clueless-uk-release.htm
When it comes to indie film marketing this quote from the article is the final word:
"...if you plan on getting anywhere whatsoever with self-distribution, you will have to ditch your sense of modesty."
Somewhere in this world, there are pictures of me naked trampolining on a beach. I have no sense of modesty.
Proof or it didn't happen!
LOL! Yeah. No.Somewhere in this world, there are pictures of me naked trampolining on a beach. I have no sense of modesty.
So, RayW, what did you do and how much did you make?
In 2014 Sundance had a total submisssion of 12218, for 187 accepted films.
"For the 2015 festival, there were 2,309 dramatic features submitted, and 1,796 documentary features submitted."
I don't get it, why do so many filmmakers do this? Blatantly misleading statements/outright lies, especially when it comes to budgets/budgeting! I'm not saying there weren't a couple of interesting/useful points but really:
Point 1 is just ridiculous for 3 reasons:
1. If any idiot can do it for £80, what kind of idiot must he be to have needed £12,000?
2. His second point details how there was no choice but to spend £867.50 before he was allowed to distribute, in addition to the £80!
3. It's obviously dramatically cheaper to make a film if: A. You make a documentary, as documentaries have much lower audience production value expectations and B. If you don't actually make much of the film yourself but rely on other professional filmmakers to create much of your film's content at their expense! In this case, the considerable use of unlicensed clips from other films.
Point 3 is of course misleading. I'd like to know where he is buying his 64GB memory sticks for less that £0.62 (about 90c) but despite this insignificant point, digital technology has made certain aspects of filmmaking/distribution cheaper but overall, meeting audience expectation is really not so much cheaper than it ever was and in some regards it's more expensive.
Point 10: How "desperate" can a filmmaker really be to recoup 0.07% of their budget?
I'm not saying Charlie Lyne hasn't been clever, taken a calculated risk and accomplished a lot for someone his age, I'm just questioning the trend of deliberately misleading the public and new/inexperienced filmmakers.
So I take the actual tips with a pinch of salt, but I do think that Beyond Clueless provides a really interesting distribution model, one that I hadn't seen before first-hand. We've all seen people gruellingly four-walling their flick, but Charlie Lyne has done something different by using the film's publicity and his contacts in the cinema industry to get straight to the programmers.
Although Beyond Clueless might provide a good/interesting model for distribution, I'm not so sure it's a good model as far as a film is concerned. C.L. has taken a big risk and IMHO it actually breaks copyright law.
... presumably the BBFC's certification means they don't consider it to break copyright laws?
And I'm presuming that sales agencies and the big film festivals make basic legal enquiries?
That said, perhaps that's the reason potential distributors baulked at the notion of buying the film...