Typical Gross Revenues for Indie Films?

[James Steven Beverly]

What about her makeout scene with that hottie Tiffani Amber Thiesen in the movie Fastlane? :blink:

 

I GOTTA see THAT one!! B)

[AdamBray]

I GOTTA see THAT one!! B)

 

It's all over You Tube. Check it out.

[AdamBray]

ill save you time..

 

[James Steven Beverly]

ill save you time..

 

 

I LOVE YOU GUYS....and I mean that in a totally non-gay way B)

[James Steven Beverly]

I JUST watched it. Bi, hot, badass AND carries a BIG gun, Jamie OH BABY, I should be good for a week...maybe 2! :wub:

[Phil Rhodes]

Oh, really, gentlemen.

 

Is that what it takes to sell movies now?

 

Phil

[Nate Downes]

Oh, really, gentlemen.

 

Is that what it takes to sell movies now?

 

Phil

 

Doesn't hurt.

[Matthew Buick]

Oh, really, gentlemen.

 

Is that what it takes to sell movies now?

 

Phil

 

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :lol:

[James Steven Beverly]

Doesn't hurt.

 

I gotta go with Ditto on that as well, course this is nothing new, what do ya think sold The Outlaw, it's brilliant plot? :rolleyes:

[Mark Bonnington]

On Friday I met with a buyer of a film distribution company.... <snip> ...it was a darn good thing I chose 35mm for my movie because that will count for a lot in territories all over the planet.

 

How much does image quality matter in the sale of a movie? I was hoping to shoot my feature on the RedOne camera, which has a film-like picture quality to it. I think the novelty of using that camera will have worn off by the time my feature is finished (since thousands will have used it by then), but showing a movie at a quality better than the typical DV indie movie... is that going to make a significant difference in the sales that I can get? Will the movie market be begging for HD and 4k movies as more and more people get the hardware to play that resolution? Or will the content (actors, special fx) reign over any kind of image quality?

Edited July 1, 2007 by Mark Bonnington

[Guest]

35mm is the long established format of "serious" filmmaking. When you say you "shot 35" you instantly have credibility. People will assume you spent money.

 

Now they might watch your movie and think it stinks, but at least you'll get them to watch the first two minutes. Most buyers make their decisions in the first two minutes.

 

Maybe in 10 years Red will be the standard, who knows? But for now, in my experience, 35 moves you up the ladder considerably.

 

Especially since the DVD direct market is flooded with cheap DV movies.

 

R,

 

Why wait for Red? There are plenty of other HD systems out there that have been in use for some time now.

[Mark Bonnington]

Why wait for Red? There are plenty of other HD systems out there that have been in use for some time now.

 

If Red delivers what they claim, and I think they will, the price versus performance will be better with the RedOne than other HD cameras. Plus, I've only written a quarter of my script so far and I don't think it'll be finished until next year, which is approximately when I'd be able to get hold of a RedOne.

[Jacob Van Balen]

That's the Catch-22 -- they prefer movies with high production values... but you have to have low production costs to be able to turn a profit.

 

But if you cut too many corners, you lower your production value, but if you spend too much money to get more production value, you cut into your profits. And there's no easy formula to solve this problem. It's also why indie people break their backs trying to get deals to raise production value without spending money, which is great but it's not a long-term business model. You can't do it film after film, so at some point you either have to make the leap up in budget and type of production, or settle for making really cheap stuff. Or you have a separate career, like Richard.

 

I was taught this: it's a type of triangle... in the top there is GOOD, in the right corner there is CHEAP, and in the left corner there is FAST.

So, if it needs to be GOOD and FAST it won't be CHEAP.

If it needs to be FAST and CHEAP it won't be GOOD.

If it needs to be CHEAP and GOOD it won't be FAST.

[James Steven Beverly]

I was taught this: it's a type of triangle... in the top there is GOOD, in the right corner there is CHEAP, and in the left corner there is FAST.

So, if it needs to be GOOD and FAST it won't be CHEAP.

If it needs to be FAST and CHEAP it won't be GOOD.

If it needs to be CHEAP and GOOD it won't be FAST.

 

Yeah, but with film making, cheap and fast are synominous, which is why even on the biggest productions, people are constantly hustling to get the work done, so that only leaves cheap and good. Besides, Rodger Corman blew that theory all to Hell. I think the real trick is to make sure every dime ends up on the screen, screw the entourages, screw the enormous crews, screw the 4 star hotels and gourmet caterers, make it ALL about the work and you'll have good fast and cheap, but MOSTLY good. B)

[Liam Dale]

I was talking with a professor of mine and asked about how he was able to find financing for one of his film back in the day and he said that in the 60's and 70's putting money into a film was tax deductable up to $30,000 so you could just go around and beg bankers to throw you some money and they would. Now, this went down the tube when they changed the tax laws so I guess it isn't exactly helpful to point out, but wouldn't it be nice if we could write some letters and get the gov't to change that back - help out the little guys a bit.

[Mark Bonnington]

I was talking with a professor of mine and asked about how he was able to find financing for one of his film back in the day and he said that in the 60's and 70's putting money into a film was tax deductable up to $30,000 so you could just go around and beg bankers to throw you some money and they would. Now, this went down the tube when they changed the tax laws so I guess it isn't exactly helpful to point out, but wouldn't it be nice if we could write some letters and get the gov't to change that back - help out the little guys a bit.

As the disparity between rich and poor continues to grow in the U.S., I expect the government will reinstate these types of tax breaks as a sort of "please don't revolt" peace offering.

[Mark Bonnington]

I was talking with a professor of mine and asked about how he was able to find financing for one of his film back in the day and he said that in the 60's and 70's putting money into a film was tax deductable up to $30,000 so you could just go around and beg bankers to throw you some money and they would. Now, this went down the tube when they changed the tax laws so I guess it isn't exactly helpful to point out, but wouldn't it be nice if we could write some letters and get the gov't to change that back - help out the little guys a bit.

As the disparity between rich and poor continues to grow in the U.S., I expect the government will reinstate these types of tax breaks as a sort of "please don't revolt" peace offering.

[Mark Bonnington]

Why did that last message post twice??? That's too weird.

 

Anyway... getting back on track. Has anyone here had GOOD experiences with self-distribution and self-promotion of a micro-budget feature? I'm looking for case studies of the common man, not the "Blair Witch" people and that crowd. If you had success, how do you feel that you achieved it?

[James Steven Beverly]

Blair Witch was an anomaly. If Blair Witch had been marketed in a traditional way, it would have done a fraction of the business it did, Book of Shadows proved that. The true genius and lesson to be learned from Blair Witch was the completely original way it was sold to the public and there is a GREAT lesson to be learned there. B)

[Mark Bonnington]

Blair Witch was an anomaly. If Blair Witch had been marketed in a traditional way, it would have done a fraction of the business it did, Book of Shadows proved that. The true genius and lesson to be learned from Blair Witch was the completely original way it was sold to the public and there is a GREAT lesson to be learned there. B)

The Blair Witch movie was pushed with a multi-million dollar advertising campaign, back when the Internet was still untapped. It utilized false-advertising (claiming the story was a real-life event, when it wasn't), and targeted a demographic of gullible people in order to create the snowball effect necessary for major success. Lessons that can be learned from that project... throwing lots of money into advertising will fill seats, there are more gullible people in the world than one might imagine, and at some point the sheep mentality of the masses will cause them to watch a movie simply because they hear everyone else is watching it.

[James Steven Beverly]

Your opinion of humanity is truly inspirational. :rolleyes: People throw wads of advertising cash at films all the time, look at Grindhouse. But that can generally only secure the opening weekend. SOMETIMES that's enough sometimes it's not. The Witch people spent 4 years developing a cult following long before the film was released or had a distribution deal and YES THEY USED DECEPTION! Oh my God somebody call a cop!!! EVERYBODY uses some deception to get their films seen, it's just a matter of degrees and this one pushed the outer edge a little BUT it worked.

 

They got enough of a following going to get some heavy hitters interested in promoting and distributing their film and put up all that cash to do so for a film that in my opinion, is not a very good or particularly well made. By comparison, it makes Clerks look like Bladerunner, but be that as it is, they did ALL this though shear grit and determination AND through a very clever ploy, making the teens (who are the main people who buy tickets anyway) believe the film was a true event. This was a stroke of absolute genius and it paid off in spades! If those guys had been better filmmakers, they would be the kings of Hollywood right now, but see EVENTUALLY talent does win out. People really aren't idiots, they'll figure out when they're being conned pretty damn quick.

 

The lesson to be learned here is creative advertising can pay off big and if you approach advertising in completely original way people will sometimes respond beyond your wildest dreams also dedicated self promotion can be the difference between success and living in oblivion AND yes, throwing massive amounts of cash at a film CAN help it's box office... but you've got to get people with the money to throw at the film interested in bothering with it and to do that with a 30 grand film shot on 16 and video is the mother of all hat tricks and THAT in it's self is a lesson, wouldn't you say? B)

[Mark Bonnington]

Your opinion of humanity is truly inspirational. :rolleyes: People throw wads of advertising cash at films all the time, look at Grindhouse. But that can generally only secure the opening weekend. SOMETIMES that's enough sometimes it's not. The Witch people spent 4 years developing a cult following long before the film was released or had a distribution deal and YES THEY USED DECEPTION! Oh my God somebody call a cop!!! EVERYBODY uses some deception to get their films seen, it's just a matter of degrees and this one pushed the outer edge a little BUT it worked.

 

They got enough of a following going to get some heavy hitters interested in promoting and distributing their film and put up all that cash to do so for a film that in my opinion, is not a very good or particularly well made. By comparison, it makes Clerks look like Bladerunner, but be that as it is, they did ALL this though shear grit and determination AND through a very clever ploy, making the teens (who are the main people who buy tickets anyway) believe the film was a true event. This was a stroke of absolute genius and it paid off in spades! If those guys had been better filmmakers, they would be the kings of Hollywood right now, but see EVENTUALLY talent does win out. People really aren't idiots, they'll figure out when they're being conned pretty damn quick.

 

The lesson to be learned here is creative advertising can pay off big and if you approach advertising in completely original way people will sometimes respond beyond your wildest dreams also dedicated self promotion can be the difference between success and living in oblivion AND yes, throwing massive amounts of cash at a film CAN help it's box office... but you've got to get people with the money to throw at the film interested in bothering with it and to do that with a 30 grand film shot on 16 and video is the mother of all hat tricks and THAT in it's self is a lesson, wouldn't you say? B)

Their success is certainly unusual, I'll give them that, and I can see how they were able to spin the plot to their advertising advantage, but I don't see the Blair Witch instance as being a useful case study for micro-budget indies. Not only because they had an unusual plot that lent itself to an otherwise unaccessible marketing tool ("The true story of..."), but also because the Blair Witch people distributed their film by getting a distributor to push their film. It's that distributor bottleneck that's preventing most indie films from being released, so analyzing the success of Blair Witch won't be of much use to the person that can't get a distributor. The quick solution is to say "convince the distributors to pick up your movie", but that step of convincing them is usually impossible... so the next step is to figure out how to distribute without a distributor, and that's what I'm looking for - case studies where people successfully sidestepped the distributors.

 

I used to have a great opinion of humanity, but then more than 45% of the country voted Bush Jr. for a second term :blink: . My opinion of modern mankind has gone downhill ever since.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Mark Bonnington

[James Steven Beverly]

Their success is certainly unusual, I'll give them that, and I can see how they were able to spin the plot to their advertising advantage, but I don't see the Blair Witch instance as being a useful case study for micro-budget indies. Not only because they had an unusual plot that lent itself to an otherwise unaccessible marketing tool ("The true story of..."), but also because the Blair Witch people distributed their film by getting a distributor to push their film. It's that distributor bottleneck that's preventing most indie films from being released, so analyzing the success of Blair Witch won't be of much use to the person that can't get a distributor. The quick solution is to say "convince the distributors to pick up your movie", but that step of convincing them is usually impossible... so the next step is to figure out how to distribute without a distributor, and that's what I'm looking for - case studies where people successfully sidestepped the distributors.

 

I used to have a great opinion of humanity, but then more than 45% of the country voted Bush Jr. for a second term :blink: . My opinion of modern mankind has gone downhill ever since.

 

Well, it's hard to argue with the Bush thing but every time I get political the management gets upset so I'll just let it lie, it serfices to say the 55% didn't so take heart and have a good opinion of at least half of us, now as for Witch, you're looking at this in too narrow of a spectrum, Blair Witch Had "This is the true story of...." what you have to do is find out what's unique about your film and how can you exploit that. You say they succeeded by pushing the distributor, what's stopping you from doing the same thing? The quick solution?!! :blink: May I remind you it took them 4YEARS of developing a following, that's not what I would call quick. As for finding a distributor being impossible, we're filmmakers, we do the impossible every day! the whole key is tenacity, never give up and never stop trying BUT stack the odds in your favor WHENEVER possible, hit distributors that handle films like yours, keep production value high and costs low, make films that have a wide appeal or capitalize on controversial subject matter in other words exploitation of modern fears and concerns, sticking to formulas that work and have a know track record, inclusion of name actors if possible, developing an eye for talent, making sure every dime spent can be seen up on the screen, shameless and constant self promotion and complete and utter self confidence EVEN when it's not nessasrily warranted, this even more than talent is the key to success. Blair Witch is the PERFECT study for micro-budget indies because it succeeded though hard work, brilliant innovation and capitalization of it's assets DESPITE being a rather piss-poor piece of tripe, THAT, my friend is utter genius and the and one of the greatest lessons you will ever learn, now can you do what Blair Witch did, of course not, you're not making Blair Witch and even if you were, it's already been done. The trick is to find out what is marketable about your movie and find a way to exploit that... which is ALL the the Witch guys really did when you boil it all down to the bones of their success. See what I mean? B)

[Mark Bonnington]

...what you have to do is find out what's unique about your film and how can you exploit that. You say they succeeded by pushing the distributor, what's stopping you from doing the same thing? The quick solution?!! :blink: May I remind you it took them 4YEARS of developing a following, that's not what I would call quick. As for finding a distributor being impossible, we're filmmakers, we do the impossible every day! the whole key is tenacity, never give up and never stop trying BUT stack the odds in your favor WHENEVER possible, hit distributors that handle films like yours, keep production value high and costs low, make films that have a wide appeal or capitalize on controversial subject matter in other words exploitation of modern fears and concerns, sticking to formulas that work and have a know track record, inclusion of name actors if possible, developing an eye for talent, making sure every dime spent can be seen up on the screen, shameless and constant self promotion and complete and utter self confidence EVEN when it's not nessasrily warranted, this even more than talent is the key to success. Blair Witch is the PERFECT study for micro-budget indies because it succeeded though hard work, brilliant innovation and capitalization of it's assets DESPITE being a rather piss-poor piece of tripe, THAT, my friend is utter genius and the and one of the greatest lessons you will ever learn, now can you do what Blair Witch did, of course not, you're not making Blair Witch and even if you were, it's already been done. The trick is to find out what is marketable about your movie and find a way to exploit that... which is ALL the the Witch guys really did when you boil it all down to the bones of their success. See what I mean? B)

Quick solution as in a solution easily thought up... not necessarily quickly executed.

 

The thing preventing someone from successfully getting a distributor is the lack of having anything to push... micro-buget indies can't afford name actors, fx and the like. Everything I've read so far has indicated that modern distributors won't buy micro-budget because of the lack of those elements, and the distributors won't take the risks they took a decade ago. I have to assume that Blair Witch came along at a time when distributors were a little more risk-friendly.

 

If by some random luck and tremendous effort an indie movie finds an audience, only then will the distributors get interested because they will see tangible attention from the public. But at that point the audience for the movie has already been acquired, and is potentially growing through positive word-of-mouth. Getting the audience seems to be the whole point of a distributor, and with that work already done then a distributor would merely swoop in and take a huge cut of the profits. Wouldn't it make more sense to take that discovered audience, continue to nurse it with the same efforts that got the audience interested in the first place, and then collect 100% of the results? Why struggle so hard to get a distributor's attention when that same effort could be applied directly to consumers?

 

If you're constantly going hungry, do you keep begging the fisherman to catch you a fish or do you try your own hand at fishing? Personally, if the fisherman doesn't want to give me fish, then I'm going to catch my own meal. And if I hook a fish on my line, I'm not going to give the pole over to the fisherman in exchange for a tiny piece of the catch.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Mark Bonnington

[Brad Grimmett]

The Blair Witch movie was pushed with a multi-million dollar advertising campaign

From what I understand, they didn't have a big marketing budget, and the advertising campaign didn't come until after the film had a huge opening in a few theaters and was destined to be a success.

As I understand it, the producers were doing the online marketing themselves. They had a brilliant idea for how to market the film, and it worked.

People like to talk a lot of trash about "The Blair Witch Project", but the fact is, it was a great idea that was done well, and it got people excited to see it. Sure, it's no masterpiece, but there is plenty to be learned from their success. If you want to write it off as junk and an anomaly, that's fine. But the truth is, any indie that manages to have the success that this film did is an anomaly. There are probably some lessons to be learned from the Blair Witch example. I wouldn't write it off so quickly if I were trying to make and market an indie.