Went to dinner with an indie filmmaker last night. Here’s a rant based on that.
Hoping to make your little movie and make a living off of it, until you can get the next one going? Very unlikely, unfortunately.
As somebody mentioned in an email to me about this, moviemaking digital tools came along to help reduce (some) costs of moviemaking, but other digital tools came along that stripped away the marketability of those films even faster (bootleg downloads, too much content, competition for time from internet/cable/DVDs/games/etc.) and the math isn’t working out favorably right now.
-he made a doc, shot on film, about free software. Is available, against his will and illegally, on Google Video subtitled in many languages.
-he gave up trying to stop it - was too diffficult and time consuming, Gooogle does nothing
-clear track of sales decline from when YouTube/Google Video versions started popping up
-problem: make a movie about free stuff and technology, maximum likelihood of it getting ripped off
In any case, we’d previously talked about the Bad Math of indie moviemaking - Mark Gill’s infamous (yet deadly accurate) speech about the odds against indies - 5000ish submissions to Sundance, 120 screened, maybe 2-3 make their money back. Basically, odds are 99.9% likely you’ll lose money
-look at how many movies open every week/weekend - how can your indie compete? I noticed that the great clever little indie Timecrimes that I saw at FantasticFest (think Primer but with more recursion) is opening against:
-Delgo - that weird homebrew animated thing from some Atlanta interactive guy - I fear it’ll get slaughtered at the box office, too
-The Day The Earth Stood Still with Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly
-Doubt with Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman
-Gran Torino with Clint Eastwood
-Reader with Kate Winslet and Ralph Fienes
-What Doesn’t Kill You with Mark Ruffalo and Ethan Hawke
You wanna go up against the box office prowess of Clint, Keanu, Meryl, Kate, etc.? Good luck with that..lost in the crowd...and I thought that movie was GREAT indie moviemaking, Go See It.
It’s been great that cost of indie moviemaking TOOLS has come down - but in the end, cameras and editing and finishing are cheap as compared to what it takes to put something interesting on the screen. Name brand talent, which is what it takes to get noticed, is still spendy (but perhaps sanity is re-emerging in the market). Want a cool action car chase? The cost of closing streets, hiring cops/stuntdrivers/cars/etc. hasn’t gone down, and has probably gone up. VFX are cheaper/easier, but audiences expect more. The math is going the wrong way. The growth of new avenues of distribution - online rental and purchase in all the myriad forms and formats, cable TV, DVD/Blu-ray, etc....means so many more ways to find stuff, especially for niche markets. That’s great. But the decreasing cost of production has vastly outstripped it.
Story - a guy trying to make little cheapo guns ‘n boobies sci-fi movies on the ultra cheap - make 3 a year. He got no bites on international distribution at some film market, and sold all domestic rights for $16K. That’s half of what he needed just to break even.
Another story - similar tale of someone who, after all the other fees and cuts and whatnot were done, got $2 per DVD as producer. OK - sold about 5000 units. That’s $10K compensation for making a feature film.
True Tale - a big box retailer has out and out STOPPED taking content from indie distributors - if you aren’t coming through the big boys, they don’t want your stuff.
-talking to someone involved in movie financing, I said I guess it sounds like you shouldn’t even try if you don’t have $10M. Without even pausing to look up from her salad, she instantly corrected “20 million” before she took a bite. Think about that - it seemed so intrinsically obvious to her that it wasn’t even worth looking up to make eye contact.
Anecdote - it used to be that the hot new movie directing talent came up through commercials and music videos - think David Fincher. McG is, I think, the last name I can think of that came up that route that has achieved commercial success. Anybody else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? There was a list of top 50 hot talent something or other. Nobody under 30. Where’s the new talent coming from? Not from music videos anymore - there’s barely a market, and certainly no real money, in that anymore
Anecdote - talking to that indie director, he said he was at a film market and asked where talent was being hired from. Not from the states - the hot talent was being sought overseas, where there is effectively state sponsored filmmaking. Because it is too expensive to train/build your own director, waiting for their costly early films to lose too much money. Making a good movie is DAMN hard. For all of Hollywood’s egregious idiocy, they DO have some people paying attention to making movies that they THINK people want to see. They hire experienced people with proven track records...and still blow it all too often. It is HARD to make a good, successful movie that is profitable.
Overheard - ‘spend half your money making the movie, the other half on marketing’ - I hear of so many indie efforts trying to get together finishing funds, not realizing the costs of making acceptable deliverables, etc. Raise as much as you’ve already raised, again? A laughable endeavor for many - they can’t pull it off (the amateurs). Should they budget this way? Yes. Can they? No.
Indie moviemaking? Make more lower cost movies? With the massive decline in viewership of the original networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox), competition for eyeballs online, on games, on cable, etc. - it is SOOOOO very expensive to market a film -
from a May 2007 NYTimes article:
“Last year, the average price for a major studio film increased 3.4 percent, to $65.8 million. By contrast, average marketing costs, which hit their peak in 2003, declined 4.4 percent to $34.5 million.”
Some perceived quality...that means, probably in roughly this order: script, direction, acting, and technical competence. Note which is last.
Also talks about average marketing budget of $35M. AVERAGE. If spending $35M to advertise, might as well make it something GOOD. Let’s see....spend $10M or $100M for what we’re going to advertise for $35M....hmm....better do $100M.
Supply and demand is upside down - there’s WAY too much content, made on these easier and cheaper tools (relatively speaking) of the last few years competing for the limited amount of time we’re willing to watch stuff. More important than that however, is how willing we are to PAY for stuff.
At dinner, my friend was saying basically the same thing about creative content. Think about that, and re-read this line: “whole categories of currently lucrative businesses will be either transfigured unrecognizably or completely wiped out, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.”
I’m not saying it isn’t possible to make a good, worthy, financially successful independent film.
I’m just saying there’s no proven, valid, viable business model where it makes sense for investors to put money into it.
And in this wretched crashing economy, I think the days of the vanity, ego-driven, support-the-arts investor support of indie films are OVER.
My friend wondered what this would mean for moviemaking in the future - would this kill off future generations of talent?
In a way, I kind of hope so. A lot of movies are being made that, frankly, shouldn’t be. We can count on the talented and committed making the effort to get their stories told. Bravo. But probably 80+% of film school grads are going to be moths to the flame - poof - nobody saw that tiny flash of color, weren’t looking, and it is gone forever.
As long as I’m ranting, film school education has GOT to be one of the worst investments. Spend $100K or more to learn a craft where you have no hope of making that kind of income as a median for 10+ years. An ex-girlfriend talked about going back to grad school, and if your loans totalled what you made your first year out (about $45K in her case), it was a good balance, a good deal. So, $100K in loans and $25-$50K at best first year out? Bwahahahhaaaaa.....of, man, that hurts. Yes, that’s mean of me to phrase it that way, but Dark Mike is at the wheel today. Puppies, Skittles and Beer not on the agenda.
I’m really a post guy. I write a little bit. I have some ideas _I_ think are fun and interesting and dabble with the idea of making into a movie. Should I go for it? As a business decision, No Way. Here’s what I think might be the best possible, most optimistic outcome were I lucky and talented - I have an idea for a short film. I own a Red, a couple of lenses, enough post gear to finish out and deliver 4K DPXs for filmout (nah, 1080p is Just Fine). I’ve probably spent about $80K on gear....which I never quite really intended to get into that position, just kinda happened. But that’s another article.
If I make this one particular short, I’ll betcha I’d still end up putting $20K into it for locations, talent, lighting, travel, audio post, etc., to do something I think would make the effort worthwhile. IF I were lucky enough to get that short into a festival (while of course, short films have no marketable value), I’d probably spend another $5K on travel etc. doing the festival circuit at a level to make it fun. That’s $25K and who knows how many months of time.
Really, it’d be my expensive hobby, and I’d have to be OK with that before I proceeded on that basis.
Would I have fun doing it? Probably. It would probably lead to more stress than I expected, and take way longer and not be as fun later in the game during post, but that is my decision to make.
It isn’t so much about the technical quality of what’s possible - Red makes a damn fine image and is a great creative tool, EX-1/EX-3 amazingly good for the money (Dean Devlin shot a doc on EX-1 and seems like basically felt like F900s should F off for these applications), HVX200 and similar are, well, impressive for the little money they cost. But it is about the market. The demand. People aren’t willing to spend (much at all) money to see indie content, not when there is so much better stuff out there to be seen for free or cheap, or competing against the very little bit of free time they have.
Want to make something that works? Make something people want to watch. I have a friend trying to put together a Christmas project, and keeps saying “With this cast, wouldn’t you want to see it?” The harsh truth is...I’ve heard of the entire cast. I like many of them. I think the female lead is smoking hot, as well as talented and admirable as a human being. But that’s Still. Not. Good. Enough. There’s probably a half dozen Christmas/holiday films coming out this year.*.BUT....that said, I probably MIGHT see one of them. And even though I haven’t read the script for my friend’s project, I don’t know that I’d go see it were it made - there’s just too much other stuff out there.
This weekend - will I go see a movie? Maybe even two? Clint Eastwood and Keanu are my likely pics, but if I hadn’t seen TimeCrimes, I wouldn’t give it a second look...it looks weird, so I’d move on…
...not to say we won’t have some resurgence in the future. How to make a successful indie film? Be a successful filmmaker already. Get talented cast/crew, make a movie for under $5M, which means trim WAY back on on-set luxuries, have everyone defer all fees for a future cut...and then pray - maybe your adds are 10% instead of 0.01%. But like Gill said, indie movies need to be made at indie budget levels. If it is a niche/indie play, keep in mind how big the market might be....nah, that math still doesn’t work worth a damn....
As soon as someone predicts the death, the end, the irreversible demise of something, we can start the countdown to its resurgence.
Indie film looks dead now. It’s not a good situation to be making low budget docs and dramas at the moment. (Uh, was it ever a GOOD time, or was it just a better time?) Hey, I went to Ballast at the cinema last week. I’d heard great things about it. It won the Blah Blah Award at Sundance. And the filmmaker was going to self-distribute it, rebel that he was. I had to support him. Except the truth is that his film doesn’t belong in theatres. And there is the rub.
Ballast doesn’t belong in a theatre, sorry to say. Not outside of festivals and special screenings anyway. It’s a tiny, artful, sliver of a film. Worth making and worth watching. Not worth reserving a decent screen at a theatre or paying for parking. The theatre’s screen I watched it on was about the size of my plasma display at home, the sound system had a blown speaker, and a giant piece of fuzz vibrated over the picture for the film’s duration.
Ballast is worth paying for. I’d encourage you to see it. Just not at a theatre. But I’d devour it at home, for $5, through some instant download into my home theatre. And once I’d watched that, I’d be trying to find the next hot niche film...except I’ll quickly discover I’ve already devoured them all last week, along with every episode of 30 Rock. Twice. And suddenly that glut of content is a dearth. We’re not there yet. But hey, we’re just getting started!
You see, there’s not a glut of content--not in comparison to the billions of audience members now conceivably linked around the globe. No, the real problem is there’s a bottleneck for effective distribution. We’re currently making more stuff--more good, bad and indifferent stuff--than we can get into audiences’ hands. We’re predicting the death of indie cinema only because the current model cannot sustain the explosion of content. The competition for the same number of screens is obviously going to favor the giant mega movies. Yes, indie film is dead under the current model. But guess what--the current model of distribution is dying too. (Uh, I accidentally downloaded a pristine copy of Nixon Frost a couple days ago thinking it was a segment from the original Nixon Frost interviews. It was the movie. The entire movie. And the quality was indistinguishable from DVD. Oops.)
How many times do you walk out of the video store empty handed? Where’s this glut of content when I have $6.99 burning a hole in my pocket, if only I could find single goddam science-fiction film to rent that I hadn’t seen five times. I swear that shelf in the store has not grown by more than five DVDs in two years. There’s room for more than one Primer.
Great films are hard to make. You said it. But that is one thing that has NOT changed, and won’t change. What will change is that our insatiable desire for content--the content we want, when we want it--hasn’t even been tapped yet. Haven’t you ever rented a season of a TV series on DVD only to find that you watch the WHOLE THING in a night? Like all 13 hours of it? I have, and guess what--if there was another 13 hours, I’d watch that too. We want more content than we can get. The real problem is it’s still too hard to get.
Watch the re-birth of “indie film” once the true revolution in distribution is implemented, in gawd knows how many years. When the Chicago Sun Times and a dozen other major media outlets have died off, and advertisers realize that the Internet really is the only place left to advertise, and MacDonald’s is bidding to buy some airtime on The Guild Season 5.
I don’t know when this is going to happen. But things move faster than we expect these days. Maybe five years is a long time to wait if you’re an artist in search of a career. Eventually, however, there will be more demand for GOOD video (not cheap, free YouTube filler), than the good writers, directors and producers can make it. There will be cottage industries set up making comedy, drama and docs in every city and town in the world. Many of them will fail. Lots of them will be highly profitable. Hey, question: how many Amazon snake documentaries can I watch? Answer: more than they will ever make. Python versus crocodile, ya!!!
Maybe that sage wisdom some rich dudes apply to the stock market should also apply to building your content company: “Buy when everyone else is afraid.”
Posted by on 12/11 at 05:03 PM
Man, that is a long article and a LONG comment. You guys are making me read too much.... time that could have been spent watching an indie film.
Posted by on 12/11 at 05:12 PM
You’re right.
Posted by on 12/11 at 05:52 PM
Sean - resurgence of buggy whip manufacturers, saddle manufacturers, leaded gas, and cargo pants?
Kingloud - spoken like a voice of the modern generation....and there are multiple ways to interpret that…
-mike
; )
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/11 at 05:59 PM
Indie film ( as video ) will rise as broadcast television and the multiplex theater dies. See Joss Weeden’s “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-A-Long Blog”
Posted by on 12/11 at 06:20 PM
Joss Wheedon isn’t exactly a typical case for an indie with his prior success, and I’d be curious to know how much he, the actors, etc. made off of it. It was a one-off project, a curiosity, probably not something he could churn a bunch out of. Also, note the production value - ugh.
Indie content - needs better distribution, and needs a bigger market (over time will come), and needs to pay better. It doesn’t know, and I think it couldn’t possibly be sooner than 3 years before audiences MIGHT POSSIBLY get big enough for the payoffs to be moderately worth it. In reality? Probably more like 7-10 years for there to be a sizeable market wherein people can make reasonable, SUSTAINED living making indie content…
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/11 at 06:28 PM
I believe that if indie filmmakers really want to find a bigger market, they need to start making films for the more profitable markets, like 13 year old girls. Catherine Hardwicke’s “Thirteen” is a good example of a small movie that took off. It’s no coincidence that she then went on to direct “Twilight”.
Thirteen year-old girls dude. They have the key that unlocks all drawers.
Posted by on 12/11 at 07:07 PM
Great stories aren’t like buggy whips. One is ageless, the other, a single tool replaced by better technology. And hey, in principle, buggy whips are still around--they evolved into things like your car keys. And billions more car keys have been made with technological progress than anyone imagined in the time of buggy whips. 
Posted by on 12/11 at 07:17 PM
Kingloud - I’m all for chasing down profitable demographics, especially underserved ones. But connect the dots to how low budget digital filmmaking can connect with them? They are probably one of the audiences LEAST likely to go see something unproven, unsafe, unpopular, un-marketed. If there isn’t a strong brand name associated with it, they won’t go see something that is several times better. Not a perfect example, but compare sales of Twilight tickets to Let The Right One In - a FAR superior film, that won’t book nearly the revenue. Both about teenagers and vampires.
Sean - man, you must be one flexible dude to contort your thinking that hard...:D
So yeah - same manufacturers making car keys as buggy whips?
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/11 at 07:28 PM
Buggy whips made the cart go. The carts transformed into cars. Not so hard.
I don’t think it’s that different for indie film. The technology is changing. Our appetite for story--and to travel--stay the same. In fact the car is the appetite as evidenced on a mass scale. I expect the same for filmed stories. There will be MORE desire for them, not less.
Anyhow, you made the death of the buggy whip analogy, not me!
Posted by on 12/11 at 07:32 PM
Sean - yeah, but you’re the one flogging the dead horse!
OK - the tech is changing for content creation. The tech is changing for content distribution faster. People expect internet content for free for the most part today.
Distributors aren’t paying much, audiences aren’t paying much, online advertising isn’t paying much. The NYTimes article on YouTubers making a living points out a handful of individuals - not a market.
Desire for some kind of entertainment to deliver to all the new platforms, including mobile.
But who is paying for them, and how much are they paying? Not many, not much.
I’m talking about making a viable market, a large number of people who can make income commensurate with the skill and effort involved.
Not there.
If you are so confident, why not invest your money in all this indie content?
-m
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/11 at 07:37 PM
Mike, you have it completely right. “Indie” films as a business model has been a “dead man walking” for years now. Nothing wrong with doing your own personal films or “art” films, but you will not be making a living at it except for a handful of individuals.
I have taken exception before with certain terminology indie people like to use to describe their own “product” trying to make it something it isn’t.
Take the term “feature”. Everyone likes to say they are working on a “feature”. Feature meaning in the literal sense that the film is “feature” length but the term is used to infer that somehow their film is as substantial as a network or studio produced project when it isn’t.
“Democratization”, another term thrown around quite a bit over the last few years. Media production as a way to make a living is not now, has never been and never will be a “democracy”. It is a meritocracy where talent and market success is rewarded. If you are talking about YouTube home movies then fine, call that democracy if you want.
While it’s true that more content will be distributed via the internet, it’s also true that the internet is resembling cable tv more and more. You get connected by the same people who supply phone or cable service and pay a fee same as cable. Cable broadband can be practically as expensive as a basic cable package.
Posted by on 12/11 at 08:15 PM
Mike - your rant is basically on target and I understand where you are coming from. But it could have been said very simply.
There was, is not and never will an “indie film business model”. People just thought there was one.
Before DV, computers and the net, it did not exist. Like now, most all of us lost money. It’s just that the DV and HD and now 4K cameras, cool post tools, the “intertubes” etc. had made people believe a business model exists. It sells a lot of books, gear, web traffic etc.
But it doesn’t. Sure, more people are trying and some make nice-looking stuff. But there is no business model as it’s now clear to the once-believers.
Indie filmmaking is burning money - always has been, always will. You do it because you have the passion or madness or naivete to do it. You keep doing it more because you have to do it than you want to do it.
Posted by stephen v2 on 12/11 at 08:26 PM
“I’m awaiting the first comment to tell me “If you think that way, you’ll never make it.””
The best piece I ever heard was, “you want to go into film? Don’t. And if you know enough to ignore that advice, you’ll be fine.” Knowing about the pitfalls means you won’t fall into them.
It seems clear to me that the future of indie content is home theater and the various internet-connected boxes like xbox, apple tv, boxee, and netflix streaming. They’ll have a website where indie filmmakers can upload their movies, and those will show up on everyone’s TV. With the right social networking links, it wouldn’t be hard for a little movie to get a million downloads, and at 3 bucks a pop… there’s your business model.
Apple is doing this today, right now—only with software instead of video. The App Store is an (ahem) “open” platform for indie software developers to distribute their code. Replace programs with video, and you’ve got your distribution channel.
So the technical infrastructure is there. Maybe youtube will partner with netflix. They just added HD support, and I bet they’d be happy to charge you a small fee to upload a feature-length film. (How many pirated movies would people upload to youtube if there was a credit card attached to the account?) They’ll take everything because disk space and bandwidth are pretty cheap, and on every sale they take their small cut. Piracy will exist, but make something easy enough to get and people won’t pirate it.
Oh god, I’ve become a Long Tail booster.
But you see what I mean. Yeah, the bitrate will suck and people will watch you on a tiny ipod screen. But as long as it means that people are seeing your film, is that so bad?
Posted by Owen on 12/11 at 08:34 PM
Owen - the models you suggest:
-have a number of “Ifs” in them. If only Apple would let you. If only charge $3/ea. If only a million downloads. If only Netflix.
Not. Happening.
(Yet)
And when it does, how much will people really pay? We’re paying $3 for an HD hour long show now, and that strikes me as kinda high.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/11 at 08:40 PM
Apple will never let you. They’ve demonstrated pretty clearly that they don’t care for indie content in itunes all that much, for example. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and allow independent iphone apps. The App Store is just an example of the technology already existing.
I think the other ifs aren’t so bad. Netflix had Red Envelope Entertainment for a while, so they’ve been amenable to indie content. 3$ is a number out of my ass, which is a little cheaper than your standard dvd rental. It seems about right. Yes, 3$ for an HD hour is a bit high, but this would be 3$ for 2 hours of HD.
As for the view-count, you don’t necessarily need a million. Since this is video, not film, there’s no filmout, no prints, no distribution. Just render to h.264 and upload. You could still do marketing, but with built-in popularity lists you may not need much to get momentum. There’s another huge chunk of change saved. Now your budget is back down to earth, and you only need a few thousand paying customers to break even.
Yeah, it’s not happening yet. Maybe it’ll take someone with an established name who wants to go around the studios (Whedon, Rodriguez, Aronovsky perhaps?) to open the floodgates. To me, it seems like a such a no-brainer for the potential distributor. Throw some disk space and bandwidth at the whiny film school grads, and if it fails, who cares? There’s no downside.
Posted by Owen on 12/11 at 09:02 PM
I’d like to see that model work, but it isn’t yet.
Also, bandwidth/storage/efficient national distro model aren’t exactly cheap.
If you sit back and wait for clients to come from a referral engine, if you aren’t Apple/Amazon/Netflix, prepare for obscurity.
Similar thinking during the dotcom era - “Well, with the volume we’re talking about, dev costs amortize down to effectively zero!” Nope. Gotta roll out the infrastructure, and THEN see if it works…
A few thousand paying customers? Lets say 5,000. At $3/apiece, EVEN IF the filmmaker got $15K....that’s $15,000 for a finished 2 hour HD movie? In Hollywood, that isn’t even enough to get your deliverables package done. OK, you only need an H.264 for this, but who pays the actors? DP? Sound guy? Editor? Etc.?
Keep working on that math. Think about how many people involved in making 2 hour movie worth watching. Oh, there’s a list, conveniently at the end of every movie - the credits...they all get $1/apiece?
Keep working on that math. And include some for the bandwidth/storage/distro costs, and for marketing, etc.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/11 at 09:15 PM
Hey Mike,
Here is an indie business model that works.
I was in Utah a while back and was reading a local newspaper. They had a story profiling a director/producer team. If you have been in Utah for enough time you will notice at their local theaters that they sometimes carry low budget films catering to the Mormon base there. Films that you will not seem in theaters elsewhere. Some are religion based and some are just simple family films. There is a big draw for family fare in Utah. This producer and director specialize in low budget family films. Think “Stand by Me” but a step or two below. They make two films a year with a budget of 1 million each. They then sell the films to a distributor for 2 million each keeping the difference.
That is a business model.
But most indies have “Hollywood” size dreams and won’t settle for something they might actually make a living at.
Posted by on 12/11 at 09:30 PM
there you go - that’s one valid niche that is working for somebody.
Not a scalable concept, but hey, it works. So far.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/11 at 09:32 PM
Well it’s scalable in the sense that they could probably parlay that into cable movies for the likes of Disney Channel if they wanted. But they have a situation they are comfortable with and don’t have to deal with the notorious accounting department at Disney.
My belief about most of the indie crowd is that these are people who likely don’t have the talent for theatricals, but probably would do just fine in television at the local, cable or network level.
But they don’t want to just have a regular job in a production company. Many people stuggling to make indie masterpieces would do fine producing or directing for History Channel or the like. But that’s below them.
Many times you have blogged about working with newbie film makers who insist on doing everything wrong despite the best input from more experienced individuals like yourself. These people’s dreams will always be far bigger than their talents will ever support. But these might also be the kind of people who should have gotten a job with a production company and learned the ropes first.
Posted by on 12/11 at 09:49 PM
....but as you said, it is a Mormon niche play - I don’t know that they could go any wider, successfully, with it.
As for flight to History Channel - that isn’t the most stable gig running either. Overall, so many people making content, is a buyer’s market - so they don’t have to pay all that well…
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/11 at 09:58 PM
The films they make are just family fare, not religous.
And while it’s true that cable shows don’t pay as well as studio features, the staff and productions companies doing those shows do make a living at it.
Wasn’t your whole point that trying to make a living doing indie features isn’t working… at all?
Your talents are going to determine what you will get paid. Maybe that’s the message of the indie market right now.
But even if you were to move to Hollywood to find employment on a movie or show, you are only going to be paid for how much talent or skills you bring to the job. You want to be a millionaire director or producer then you have to be talented or skilled to that level. Are you a highly skilled producer/editor (preditor) who can wear several hats? You are likely to be paid better.
And this all gets back to the idea that the content just isn’t that great for the vast majority of the indie market. You have said that yourself. And that the old axiom “content is king” still rules the market.
All the new/cheaper toys will not trump this.
Posted by on 12/11 at 10:12 PM
good post!!
excellent!
really, if you are talking the BUSINESS side of it , you are absolutely correct
the touchy feely “ think positive” works in personal life, and other things, but face it ---
if you wanna make money , how good of an investment is it?
would you be better off taking $20K and
buying stock on the russian exchange?
do you buy GM preferred stock on the premise of making money if the auto bailout goes through?
or make a movie?
which is higher risk?
which is higher return?
or is your reasoning
because you wanna see your name 29 foot high? (ego)
or because blair witch made $50M ( greed)
or because you are sick of doing wedding videos??
if its a business /J-O-B, then whats the pay/return?
if its a hobby, then thats cool.... stop drinkin and smokin and spend that cash you save .... on cameras and actors…
bill stewart
Posted by billS on 12/11 at 10:30 PM
Oh, poor grumpy Mike… not that I disagree, grin.
Indies in the theater? Pull the other one, mate, it’s got bells on… but the very YouTube you decry is turning into a revenue source for some (ad-supported, of course):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/media/11youtube.html?ref=technology
Granted, it’s a revenue stream for cats falling down stairs more than the next English Patient / Fight Club / Solaris / Casablanca, but p’raps we have to beat our buggy whips into, um, gas cans, or, erm, extension cords for our plug-in electric cars? There’s still a Beast, and it Still Must Be Fed, but it snacks around more, and has more varied tastes, and a shorter attention span…
...and as someone employed full time in working on theatrical motion pictures (theatrical as in dramatic, not necessarily as in 40-foot-silver-screen), I find this a very interesting topic. We are pursuing alternate distribution means, alternate funding models, and content appropriate for such venues (no, NOT porn--get yer mind outta that gutter! We have SOME standards, after all!), but we’re also working on a funded theatrical (as in possibly 40-foot-silver-screen) show with name talent (which is where that funding will be spent!). Interesting times, and it’ll be MOST interesting to see how it goes and how our marketplace evolves.
It ain’t easy being indie. But dang! It’s FUN! And if it isn’t fun, you might as well do something else, eh?
Posted by Adam Wilt on 12/11 at 11:40 PM
...but that NYTimes article is making news, because it only IS a handful of people making a living at it.
Not that I’ve looked, but they are the more talented ones doing it.
Not that money is all there is to this field, but hey, MOST plumbers can make a living at it, and don’t worry about 99.9% of their jobs not being profitable…
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/12 at 12:32 AM
As someone intimated above, there has never been a successful model for “indie” films (begging the question of the definition, but here it seems to be grabbing a video camera and some friends and making a little movie). It’s certainly not a new discovery that handing a camera to John Doe will result in profit or a movie worth watching. So we should take that right out of the question. Fact is, just because someone can count pixels on a sensor doesn’t make them an artist. Most people can’t and won’t ever make anything we want to watch.
As for the talented artists with ability, the current state of the marketplace makes it that much harder for the good little films to make money. It still happens. Winning the movie game has always been a risky roll of the dice, especially when you’re banking on a single small film. It’s never been a good business plan. Ever.
But good small films will be made. Good small films will continue to open the doors to bigger films for filmmakers. Just not very many. Most people shouldn’t bother making films, not because there’s no money in it, but because they are so wrong about their ability in the first place.
Posted by on 12/12 at 08:55 AM
OK, Sean, right - but I guess my point is, it is ESPECIALLY dead right now.
It has always been a struggle, but it is especially bad in the current situation.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/12 at 12:34 PM
Thank you for a great post and discussion. Insightful.
Yeah, it’s hard making a good movie.
It’s hard to distribute a good movie.
It’s hard making a profit off a good movie.
It’s hard. The market is saturated.
There is no one business model…
This movie business seems to be all over the place…
Hmm… guess i’ll go write that damn script now…
Posted by Snow on 12/13 at 12:44 AM
Hey Mike,
Interesting the timing of your rant… I am tinkering with the wording about what IS an “indie” film to you? Is it a movie where the money comes from private investors and/or somewhere besides a studio’s resources? Is it a movie made outside the boundaries of executives who dictate how a movie should and will be made? If you define what IS indie to you, you might find a path to profitability for “indie” projects a little easier.
To touch on a couple of points, and share my thoughts on how “indie” filmmakers can potentially make money: Sean, you mentioned Ballast and I have some personal experience with the “release” of this film and where Lance Hammer (the filmmaker) could have done better for himself.
Originally Lance signed a “distribution” deal with IFC after Sundance. He became unhappy with that arrangement for various reasons and decided to self-distribute. He worked with experienced distribution exec MJ Peckos who once was with First Look and Tartan.
I had randomly met someone who personally knew Lance at “the Conversation” down in Berkeley in October. He thought the theater that I work with (Living Room Theaters) here in Portland would be perfect for Lance’s film and said I should see if we could book it. Living Room’s programming department pursued the film and we were told, “Lance is only interested in playing 35MM.” Living Room Theaters is a new concept that is 100% digital-only and built from the ground up to support foreign/independent films and their filmmakers. Ballast ended up booking at the Hollywood Theater on the other side of town (another “indie” venue) and it did not gross well enough to hold. That was the end to Ballast’s Portland theatrical run.
To bring this back full circle… Sean, you specifically mention how you saw ‘fuzz’ in the projection which was caused by FILM PROJECTION that Lance insisted on having for his film. The viewing environment and your experience seeing Ballast was marred by the venue. This is where the vast majority of “indie” filmmakers screw themselves by limiting the revenue potential on “their” movie because of some personal quest for specific fulfillment. Another movie - “Manda Bala” by Jason Kohn suffered the same theatrical fate. If these films had played at Living Room (digitally), I guarantee they would have played longer, grossed more, and made more money for the distributor/filmmakers.
All of the “mini-majors” (Focus, Fox Searchlight, Paramount Vantage) that Mike mentions are using the very same marketing methodology for all of their releases as the majors which is why they are so insanely expensive to market/distribute. It’s also why they are all going out of business. Their methods are more akin to a science project for every film.
Here in Portland, we have found ZERO correlation between newspaper print ads and box office ticket sales for limited releases, yet EVERY SINGLE distributor INSISTS on doing them. This is a LARGE amount of money coming directly out of what the distributors could be making as PROFIT for EVERY film they distribute - in EVERY city. Instead they are throwing it away on an antiquated belief that there is effectiveness in them.
A while back, a local bi-weekly newspaper mistakenly ran the wrong ad (for a film that wasn’t playing) for Living Room. We braced ourselves for the pissed off customers who would arrive to find that movie not playing. NOT A SINGLE PERSON in the entire week showed up expecting to see the film.
Good “profitable” runs at Living Room can go for 8 or more weeks, and if more filmmakers would seek out venues like Living Room throughout the country, they would find ways to profitability. Theatrical runs feed reviews which help feed awareness which drives further marketability.
I could go on and on… I whole heartedly disagree with you Mike that there isn’t a business model for “independent” films - but then again, we might not be defining “independent” the same way.
Steve Herring
Drink Me Pictures
and
Living Room Theaters (http://www.livingroomtheaters.com/)
Portland, OR
Posted by on 12/13 at 01:28 AM
Mike, you’re not supposed to say that! You’re a post guy, you’re killing your potential revenue.
You’re right though - to an extent. Making a good movie just isn’t enough. But there’s this notion in the industry that seems to affect Hollywood and indies alike - the movie MUST make a ton of money in its opening weekend or first couple of weeks on DVD otherwise it is a complete failure.
I disagree. I don’t see investing in a good movie as a bad business move at all. Much safer than shares because although you might not be making much money, you are making money. You don’t wake up one morning and all the value has been wiped off your investment and you’re now bankrupt. I guarantee that over time you WILL make your money back, providing that your film is good enough to remain on the market or in DVD stores. I hear that Cleopatra, one of the most expensive flops of all time, is close to breaking even (ok, ok, over 40 years later, but you see my point).
Now it’s not enough to live off, but did you expect it to be? It’s unrealistic to expect to live off one piece of work for your entire life. However, that little bit of extra income will help pay the bills in addition to another job and your work prospects will improve if you have successfully completed a feature, no matter how bad it might have been. So even if it never makes its money back, it’s still worth doing to improve your future job prospects.
Posted by Jon Chappell on 12/13 at 04:47 AM
The flaw in the current Indie Business Model or “BM” (get it) is trying to emulate hollywood’s blockbuster mentality.
I believe in creating indie movies for a specific niche audience. Instead of dreaming of seeing your face on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, we should put together a small team who is as passionate as you and create content for your small specific niche.
Focus on being small and profitable, instead of big and lossy.
Posted by scottpictures on 12/13 at 07:35 AM
There is no indie business model and there never will be. For one, it would move it from “indie” to “commercial” if it was a money-maker. I work with investors, I am an investor, and I would never invest in anything where I can’t see a guaranteed return.
Indie files are just a big red-flag for investors. Unless you have a distribution planned lined out and we can see it. *take note indie film-makers*
“I’m just saying there’s no proven, valid, viable business model where it makes sense for investors to put money into it.
And in this wretched crashing economy, I think the days of the vanity, ego-driven, support-the-arts investor support of indie films are OVER.”
You’re absolutely right.
Posted by Jay Friesen on 12/13 at 09:58 AM
Steve - thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences, much appreciated. If newspaper advertising doesn’t work, what does then, to get the word out? An 8 week single theater run - how much have some of your more successful films pulled in over that time frame, in terms of total gross for that period? I’m curious how viable it is for a single theater run to turn a profit for a film, such that producers etc. can pay their personal bills until their next film comes out and THOSE checks start coming in. Otherwise, is a non-sustainable model, unless you want to count each crop of failed filmmakers, one row after the other, marching in the gnashing teeth in the maw of the market that shreds them…
Jon - tails that long aren’t viable. I’m looking for a business model that could make enough money for filmmakers to pay the bills until the next movie comes out - a 40 year tail? Come on...how many movies would you need to have made, over how many years, and live how long , to pay the bills with that? I’m not saying any ONE film should set you for life, but a series of films should be able to pay the mortgage etc.
And folding some reality in, not all films will be successful, or equally so, so need to average it out so the better ones cover the weaker ones in terms of income....
Scottpictures - I’m not suggesting making a TON of money - just enough to achieve some middle class success - pay the bills, and be able to get into the NEXT movie. Profitable in terms of the filmmakers to keep doing this without running out of money, gusto, steam, hope, etc. to get into and make the next one.
Jay - interesting how you define your terms - by your seeming definition, “indie” MEANS money losing - that is a tautological self defeating definition! By my definition, I just mean non-studio financed, or self financed, or private investor financed. Basically, a film you can get done somewhat on your own with money you raise where you might still have some control over the project. Commercial can still be indie.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/13 at 12:45 PM
I’m not saying pay now, recoup your money 40 years later - that would be ludicrous. I’m saying that even one of the most expensive flops - it cost the equivalent of $300 million in today’s money and almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox - can make its money back if it’s on the market for long enough. Obviously indie filmmakers would have considerably less money to make back so it would not take anywhere near as long.
Posted by Jon Chappell on 12/13 at 01:02 PM
...but if it takes half a lifetime, then is almost pointless, from an accounting point of view.
For the indies, similarly applies - the rate of ROI (return on investment) is critical. If it takes 10 years, you need 10 years of capitol to break even before you turn a profit, that is a non-viable business model for ANY company. Car companies do better than that.
Even 2-3 years is a LOOOOOOONG time to wait for profit to begin…
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/13 at 01:09 PM
Hmm,
I don’t really have the energy to write everything that I would want to here although I will say Mike I am glad you wrote your updates saying you know you are in an extra negativo mood and are serving up hot cups of depresso. I was a fan of your HDforindies blog starting a long time ago but have noticed your tone become more and more negative over the years… none of my business just noticed.
I think you could debate a business model for indie films or any business all day long and could site cases of success and failure to back up your point no matter what it was. Early on you said something that I think is key about having big names or some sort of talent of note. I think this has always been and still is key so this might mean that where you live and who you know after having talent or a good script or whatever is the most important thing. If your ideas are good and reach the right people or have someone attached to generate momentum on the idea it seems you have a fighting chance. Does this mean your idea will get made and make its money back for you or whatever production company involved? Who knows probably not but I don’t think hardly any indie filmmaker makes their money back on their first few films… it’s all about doing what you love and believe in and getting your work seen and hopefully having the right people like it so that you have the opportunity to make the next project.
But thats just me… maybe I’m a romantic. Is it a struggle and frustrating? Hell ya but you could always just do something else.
Posted by on 12/13 at 01:23 PM
Are you seriously saying that you would spend $100K on a Short Film? Are you out of your fucking mind? $20K for locations, equipment, food, etc? You’re talking $7,000 for Equipment, Food, Paying the cast/crew, locations, et al. That $7K is a MAXIMUM.
You have to do your research, how much does the average film festival pay it’s Short film winners? $2k. Why on earth would you even consider spending more than $4k on a short film? If you spent $20K, that means you MUST win at least 10 Short Film Festivals in order to break even.. lower your budget to $2K and you break even after one festival.. into profits after two.
People that take $700,000 to make a film that can’t possible make more than $500,000 are out of their minds.
The business model isnt broken/dead, it’s the people that don’t do their proper research that are broken.
In terms of paying the film maker enough to live until the next project.. thats what the budget is for. If you need $50,000 to live for a year until the next project starts, put that money into the budget as the Producer’s fee. If you are making a film for $10,000 and not including a fee that’s the risk you take.
If you go into it thinking that you’re going to be the next Kevin Smith and make millions off of a $10,000 investment film, you’re crazy.
Consider the films that don’t make huge amounts of money as a career investment.
Did Soderberg complain when his 2nd feature made $1.1M and cost $11M? He still hasn’t broken even on that 23 years later and probably won’t ever make a dime from it.
Too many newbie film makers think that all their money comes from the backend and that’s simply not the case.
The sooner they realize that, the more successful they will be.
Posted by on 12/13 at 01:47 PM
tleisher - part of the expense is renting a particular location, central to the theme.
If you note what I said about the short, my point was that I wanted it to make it at a certain level or not make it at all, and that I was not expecting to make money on. If you are going to set a magical $7K cap on making a short, that is pretty limiting if you want professional results.
I expect it to be an expensive hobby if I pursue it, and the point I was trying to make is that having that expectation would protect me from economic disappointment.
It appears, from much of the email I receive, that many of the newbies are self-financing these low budget efforts, and/or the film wouldn’t get made if they couldn’t raise the $50K additional.
Your point about early films (Soderbergh) being professional stepping stones for the filmmaker is entirely valid.
However, who is going to pay for those early films? How did/do those early investors feel about the payback? Were they investors in his later films?
I’m talking about business models here, not career development models.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/13 at 01:53 PM
I agree with you to a degree, but I mad massive money back on my film. I shot it for 8k. It’s world sales were 400k. I just got my cheque from the sales agent - 98,000 GBP from MGs and 12,000 BGP from royalties.
So it can still happen!
I just think people are going to have make more of an effort to do more themselves, thus loweing costs. I can;t see how a film that costs over 100,000 GBP could be profitable without a theatrical.
Posted by on 12/13 at 01:54 PM
Profiteer - congrats! You say you shot it for $8K, but what were your total costs to get it to deliverables, if you are willing to share that?
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/13 at 01:57 PM
and tleisher, where did you get that $100K number? I said $20K...and I expected to do the edit, color correction, conform, mastering to digital file myself. Maybe get help on the edit, defiinitely get help on audio since I don’t know much.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/13 at 01:59 PM
Total costs for deliverables, including E&O;, marketing, posters, etc was 101,000 USD which came off of our profits - it was advanced by the sales agent
Posted by on 12/13 at 02:00 PM
Profiteer - thanks for shairng those details! So that was $110K profit, AFTER that $101K was taken out of it? And you mentioned GBP in there too, want to keep our units straight since the exchange rate is so steep - so in the end, in USD, after expenses removed, how much profit?
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/13 at 02:03 PM
btw film cost 8,000 GBP, but probably if shot in the US could have been done for the same. Technically the conversion rate at the time would put the cost of the film at 16,000 USD.
Everyone worked for free on a profit share. Here is a run down of the typical monies now being paid:
Actor: 2,000 GBP (approx)
Special FX: 4,500 BGP -> 2,000 GBP (approx)
Composer: 4,000 GBP (approx)
Director: 25,000 GBP (approx)
Producer: 25,000 GBP (approx)
I say ‘approx’ as the final payments will depend on the exchange rate, but should be very close to these figures.
Posted by on 12/13 at 02:04 PM
After total costs and percentages were deducted, profits for filmmaking team were 149,000 USD
Posted by on 12/13 at 02:05 PM
Profiteer - that’s excellent! But I don’t think it is quite accurate to say it was shot for $8K, if deliverables etc. pushed it over $100K.
So $150K distribute amongst the filmmaking team, with X # of members, to cover Y # months of effort apiece.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/13 at 02:08 PM
Quite correct. People say El Mariachi was made for 7k and primer also for 7k, but this was just the costs to get the film finished. Ours was 8k GBP. There are many more costs on top. E&O;is a bugger.
To then get it out the world you need a good sales agent who are willing to advance you the money.
Also we all worked full time jobs, and the shoot was only 21 days. So we’re all very happy with how it turned out.
But going forward - we’re not sure what to do with the next project - investors are scarce in the current climate, and the video market is in por condition.
It will be very tough and I don’t envy anyone trying to break in as an unknown right now.
I just wish I knew where all these rich inestors were who throw 250,000 USD at films like Shot Gun Stories, The Living and The Dead etc etc - they clearly have more money than sense. I need some of that to make my next film!!! 
Posted by on 12/13 at 02:13 PM
btw if we had paid our actors 90 pounds per day equity rate, they would have ended up with less money than the profit share will give them - and we the producers would have made more money - but at the time we had virtually no money.
For the record I and my co-producer are the only filmamkers I know personally (And I know quite a few) who have ever made money. It’s nuts!
Posted by on 12/13 at 02:17 PM
re-reading - the NYTimes article, as my friend pointed out, is about people creating blog content with video instead of text - super-ultra cheap to produce in bite sized snippets multiple times a week, which can draw in a repeated audience that can be built over time. Can’t do any of that with indie storytelling to make a movie.
Scott Pictures, as to niche - see my examples! People are trying to do that, and it is still failing. Porn and/or gore markets? Totally oversaturated with poor quality, non-selling, glutted-out content. Those were the last bastions of niche, oughta-be-profitable filmmaking, and they aren’t! See the guns ‘n boobies example.
The market doesn’t pay enough to justify the effort - because not enough people are willing to pay enough money to make the effort worth it.
From a business case analysis, the only ones that have significant chances are the bigger, studio produced movies.
-mike
Posted by Mike Curtis on 12/13 at 02:36 PM
I got the $100K number from the $80K equipment you bought.. its not really a factor for just the film, but I was using it as an example.
$20K for locations and equipment for a short is nuts.
You can rent a good location for under $1k for a two day weekend (if you’re short takes longer than two days to shoot, it may as well be a feature)
You can also rent a RED camera for $1k a week, so I assume you can get it for cheaper for a weekend.
A high quality audio mixer, recorder, microphone, etc shouldnt cost you more than $300 for a weekend.
Maybe we’re not on the same page, I can see how a 50 minute short can cost $20K.. but for a real short (Under 10 minutes) it shouldnt cost more than $7kish.. its not a magic number, just an estimate.
But like I said, its all about your business plan.. dont spend $20k on a short if you cant make it back from winning one or two festivals.
Posted by on 12/13 at 02:53 PM
