Why LA?

[Guest]

 

He also did get NZ funds to finish one of his films early on. This sort of thing is quite lacking (sure there are some types of grants, perhaps even government grants...) but in the US getting grants for films is rare, and these days,

 

Well it's how we all work in Canada, Australia, and Europe, it's considered to be "normal." I hear of US producers raising 2 million for a movie and they actually raise 2 million to make a 2 million dollar movie.

 

Good grief if a CDN producer had 2 million in cash, he could easily hit up all the funding agencies here plus the tax credits and pull together a 10 million dollar budget, using 2 million in equity.

 

R,

[Landon D. Parks]

 

Then there are the guys who want to do their own theatrical release, ok pony up $4000.00 for a DCP and $6000.00 to the MPAA for a rating certificate. Then poster money, then DCP drives, then ad money, then VPF, then.....

 

 

R,

 

Of course, it is cheaper now though than it was when film was the standard. Those $2,000 film reels added up quickly, I'm sure - as did the processing. Not downplaying the cost of a DCP or anything, which is significant, though I did the DCP for Wonderful World of Oz on my own, including a Rec 709 to XYZ lut. Just tested it in a local cinema a few weeks ago and all the colors held up well, and saved thousands over a DCP post house doing it.

 

You do need the correct monitoring setup though - namely a monitor fully capable of 100% Rec 709 to do a proper DCP lut, and then understand that since XYZ has more color space than Rec, you're not going to be able to push it as much.

 

From someone with a pretty nice post setup - I'll say it can be done by one person - but that one person needs to either know, or agree to learn in advance, all the different aspects of post, from color grading to mixing a 5.1 track (which isn't as easy to do as Premiere Pro's multi channel option might lead some would-be filmmakers to believe).

 

I'm able to do much of the post because I have spent years learning the different aspects of it, and know them pretty well. I know my way around composite, CG applications, tracking, color grading, sound mixing, etc... But I'd say most filmmakers never put enough time in advance to learn these things to do them correctly.

 

I really feel sorry for anyone attempting a self-cinema release. You'd better have some major funds, not just for things like MPAA ratings (which you can probably get away without in some art house cinemas), but also the marketing money to put those butts in the seats. It cost me $200 to rent a cinema screen for 1 hour to test a DCP... Cannot image the costs for a full week.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

 

but in the US getting grants for films is rare, and these days, especially for 'dangerous' topics... like "KIssed"(1996) which get some press at Tronto and Sundance...

 

Grants are hard to get, yes -- probably near impossible unless your a nonprofit making an environmental documentary. However, tax credits are still pretty strong. Here in Ohio, if you spend $300,000 on a production in the state, the state will give you 30% of that back as a refundable tax credit. Effectively, that means you can make a $300,000 film for what ends up being $210,000. Or putting it another way, you can make a movie that looks like it cost 30% more than it actually did. This is all assuming you can find someone to loan you the tax credit up front, because it's paid to you at the end of the year I believe.

[Guest]

Well I could write volumes on tax credits and the challenges there. My last film was an international treaty co production, with funding from four different countries, utilizing three different currencies. And all cash flowed by the bank. Also four law firms involved in closing all the financing. I also accessed tax credits in two countries, Canada and South Africa. Each with their own set of rules.

 

Now that was fun. Not many film deals are as complex as that.

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

Can one even pay their rent working for $100 a day as a PA in Los Angeles? I can barely pay my bills some weeks clearing $90 a day after taxes, and I live where a 1-bedroom apartment costs $500 a month.

I assume they can... as I know many people who do. Helps to have a significant other you can share the rent with. Otherwise, you can find cheap places all around L.A, it's just a matter of living in crappy neighborhoods. Some people don't mind as they've dedicated themselves to their work, others... well, I couldn't do it. I'll say this much, I'm not one of those start from the ground level up kinda guys either. That's because I had too many opportunities to do other positions when I came here, like be a cinematographer on a feature film.

 

According to Richard’s interview over at Craft Truck he made the movie self-funded for $125,000 with no real stars to speak of. He shot it in an abandoned hospital, and sold it to a distributor based pretty much on a professionally designed cover art.

If you've listened to the podcast, you'll hear about the truth behind his success, which again doesn't mirror what you're doing. It's a very good discussion and straight up truthful, especially about him shooting 35mm on his first feature to separate it from the digital films and how he bumped into people who helped him get things rolling.

 

...a good 80% of the project is green screen with virtual sets.

It's one of the many things Richard did right on his first feature, he made it simple. Once you start adding green screen and visual effects, the budget is more and more seen on screen. For example, a movie made entirely in camera may have a few photographic elements that are lower-budget, but if the cast is good and the script isn't bad, you can polish it pretty good and make it look like a movie with much higher value. Once you add a great deal of FX, things become much harder to cover up. Your lack of budget can't be covered up anymore. Sure, walmart 4.99 buyer may offer you a few thousand dollars, but most people will walk away.

 

PS) I also understand perfectly well deliverable and the need for subtitles and 5.1 mixes... Clearances, e&o, etc. I'm currently also working on these things for the earlier 'handycam' documentary.

How are you affording music or sound effects licenses? I mean, the last feature I finished, we spent more then $25k on music and licensing clearances alone.

 

Another issue I seem to have though with Tyler, and I like him a lot and hate to bring it up, but according to his IMDB profile, he has not produced or directed any feature length content either...

Well, there are a few things you should know about that. First off, I've been doing this for 25 years and 15 years ago, IMDB wasn't really the place it is today. People didn't post stuff on there and to get things posted as "completed", you must have proof they existed. So it's hard to find a tape or film print and get it on a computer in order to prove it's existence to IMDB. Since I left my Boston production job 14 years ago, I don't have copies of those projects I did there. Sure, I have a few of the one's I was more attached to, but most of them are lost to the sands of time unfortunately. Today things are very different and most stuff is posted on IMDB. Not to say any of those credits are features, because it's mostly TV work, but still my IMDB doesn't reflect half of what I've done, including TWO documentary features that I started and were finished by the financiers.

 

Second... "A Fuller Life" was very much MY film from start to finish, yet I didn't get producer credit. Why? Because the director, one of my best friends, hired someone to help produce and part of her contract said nobody else could get that credit. So even though she left the film the moment it was finished, leaving us to deal with securing distribution, she got the credit and I didn't. Welcome to the reality of the film industry, just because you do a certain job, doesn't mean you'll be credited for it.

 

Third, I haven't made a feature narrative yet because unlike you, I refuse to make one with no money. Having worked on dozens of no-low budget films, I just refuse to do it that way. I'm going to use my sales agent friends, we're going to produce a script together, something they know is sellable and we're going to find the money and make the movie. It's a long road, but it's one that I will get back to later this year. In the meanwhile, I'm busy making money and enjoying myself here in LA.

 

Not trying to push buttons here, but he does seem to point out my lack of a completed project he deems 'worthy', yet I fail to see any such projects (other than Shorts and directing a couple of TV episodes) from him. His Cinematography credits are pretty long, but does that qualify one to make assumptions about production and direction? And they are mostly shorts...

Here is the difference Landon, I make money doing what I love to do which is make visual media content. Most freelancers would eat their own shoe to have consistent work like I've been very lucky to secure. Yes, most of it is commercial, promo and educational, but it keeps me shooting, editing and finishing constantly. Every shoot I try new things and get paid to do so. That kind of leeway is tremendous and it's hard to find in hollywood, but I've taken a substantial pay decrease, plus huge stress level, to make it work. If you think making a 60 episode educational series is less tricky then making a feature, you're bonkers. The difference is; the stuff I produce will be seen by millions and the ultra-low budget feature you make will probably be unwatchable and even if it IS watchable, very few people will ever see it. In the two years it will take you to make the feature, I will have shot around 50 different projects, every one with different genera's, different cast/crew and meeting new people every day. To me, that's the most important part because if you're just focused on one project long term, it will take you decades to reach the level of someone who is constantly working on new things, be them short, or not. This is another reason I haven't yet made a feature. It does take three years and it does occupy most of your time, something I'm not quite capable of doing yet. Hopefully soon though!

 

For what's it;s worth, it might be a handycam documentary - but I was able to bring said documentary through post and into the hands of an aggregator, which appears to be more than Mr. Purcell has done... Unless his IMDB profile is misleading somehow.

Again, the film I made "A Fuller Life" was screened in theaters in NYC and Los Angeles. It was also shown around the world in 8 countries, translated into 6 languages and now we struck a deal for Criterion distribution. Our little film has already been seen by hundreds of thousands just during the theatrical screenings, it was well received and the director and I are very proud of what we accomplished with very little money. Our film won't be anywhere near Walmart or Target and if it ever winds up in the $4.99 bin, I will consider that a failure.

[Landon D. Parks]

Honestly, I’m not real sure where to begin with this. I’ll take it point by point I guess:

 

 

Again, the film I made "A Fuller Life" was screened in theaters in NYC and Los Angeles. It was also shown around the world in 8 countries, translated into 6 languages and now we struck a deal for Criterion distribution. Our little film has already been seen by hundreds of thousands just during the theatrical screenings, it was well received and the director and I are very proud of what we accomplished with very little money. Our film won't be anywhere near Walmart or Target and if it ever winds up in the $4.99 bin, I will consider that a failure.

 

 

 

I’ll take this as one who subject. First, congrats on your deal with Criterion. However, I’m having a hard time taking you seriously because of two comments made here:

 

“Our film won't be anywhere near Walmart or Target”

And

“if it ever winds up in the $4.99 bin, I will consider that a failure.”

I could actually STOP right here, after pointing this out in your comments. Anyone who knows anything about distribution AFTER theatrical would see the illogicalness of those two statements, which only proves to me that while you might have experience bringing a documentary to a distributor, you’re unclear about what their job is.

 

But, I’ll go ahead and tackle it. By your very definition, if your movie lands in a Walmart and Target, and HEAVEN FORBID it end up in the $5 bin EVER, your movie is a failure? Congrats, your movie is a failure. I said it first – remember that.

 

Why? Well, because DVD still makes up the largest portion of sales in the film industry, surpassing theatrical by a huge margin. This is not going to change in the next 10 years anyway. And you know WHO the biggest seller of DVD’s is in the United States? Walmart – and Target is pretty high up the list. Every movie ever made that got real distribution ends up in a Walmart and/or Target. Go browse the shelves there and tell me what you see… Every movie that ever got a real distribution deal is there, or at least was at one time… What happened to all the past movies? They followed a path – right into that dreaded $5 bin you say is a sign of failure. Shelf space is limited in retail, and as such as new products come in, old products that are no longer selling go to the clearance bin so they can get rid of them.

 

Just the other day I browsing through that dreaded $5 bin, and guess what I found? Spiderman 1, Spiderman 2, and Spiderman 3. Some old copies of Cats & Dogs, Forrest Gump, Milo and Otis… I could go on and on and on. But, guess what movie was sitting on the shelf, and not in the $5 bin? Sharknado 3. Yes, the crappy rip-off from MTI home video that never got a theatrical release was sitting right there on the regular DVD shelves.

 

There is a whole lot more I could say about this, but I won’t because it’s a waste of my time.

 

Next:

 

Here is the difference Landon, I make money doing what I love to do which is make visual media content. Yes, most of it is commercial, promo and educational, but it keeps me shooting, editing and finishing constantly.

 

 

 

Okay, so by your admission you mainly work on media like commercials and educations stuff. That is great, and I’m sure it gives you access to new people every day of the week. I still fail to see how working on these projects, and bringing one documentary to a distributor, qualifies you to speak for all filmmakers in the industry. Until you have made a feature and got that distributed, are you really any more qualified to make assumptions than I am?

 

NEXT:

 

 

The difference is; the stuff I produce will be seen by millions and the ultra-low budget feature you make will probably be unwatchable and even if it IS watchable, very few people will ever see it. In the two years it will take you to make the feature, I will have shot around 50 different projects, every one with different genera's, different cast/crew and meeting new people every day. To me, that's the most important part because if you're just focused on one project long term, it will take you decades to reach the level of someone who is constantly working on new things, be them short, or not. This is another reason I haven't yet made a feature. It does take three years and it does occupy most of your time, something I'm not quite capable of doing yet. Hopefully soon though!

 

 

 

First, are you really going to tell me your documentary that was screened in LA and NY was seen by HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people? Seriously, a documentary that is released in two US cities got that kind of audience? Wow, I must say – you sure have beaten pretty much every other limited release movie ever made. Assuming that is correct, let’s say it was 200,000 people – since you said hundreds of thousands… 200,000 x $10 ticket price = $2,000,000 in domestic box office from what, 2 or 3 screens? If 3 screens, that means it made $666,000 per screen. Congrats there, Spielberg.

 

Second, as for it being watchable, I’m going to tell you this right now – from a production value standpoint – it will be VERY watchable. We did not spend the past year working on the virtual sets and other CG stuff to make something cheesy. We still have about a year of CG work left, too. I have already seen a lot of actors in an open audition several months ago – and found the level of talent superb. Are they name stars? No – but then again my film is far from the first fantasy flick to have a no-name cast, even coming from Hollywood. I feel that the film will sell based on its high production values and the name behind the title which it is based off of.

 

In order to attain true distribution, you don’t always need a name cast. You need to check as many boxes as you can, but a name cast will mainly come into play when you are trying to push a genre film like comedy or drama, where the story is less important than the person driving it. Fantasy and Horror tend to have their own built-in selling power that is not solely reliant on stars, but rather on the selling power of the title itself – and the production value. Basically, people like EPIC FANTASY, regardless of who’s in it – as long as it looks slick. Family films also can find a good market without name stars in them.

 

Third, yes a feature film takes a long time to make. You think 3 years is long? I been working on this project now for over 5, and we haven’t even left development yet. But you know what, this one project I produce will be so good that I don’t need 20 educational films to sell myself to Hollywood. While you might be able to make 50 films in the time it takes me to make one feature, that one feature (if its good) will have more selling power and give me more weight than 50 educational films.

 

Now, I’m not saying education films aren’t tough to make. I’m sure shooting hundreds of episodes is not easy, nor is any filmmaking easy.

 

--

 

Really, this is all I have at the moment. In all honestly, I could write a book about this back and forth between you and I, but I’d just be wasting my time. Based on my feeling from this whole conversation, you have no more feature film experience than I do. While you might have industry experience, that is vastly different from brining an actual feature film to distribution. While I may not have gotten that far either, I have been working on active development on a feature length project for many years – which still puts me slightly ahead of you in the ability to talk about FEATURE films.

 

Come on... I can't really be the only one here who is seeing this? Would anyone other than Tyler care to tell me what part I am wrong about here? Considering my lack of actual experience, is anything I have said false or a lie? Have a mislead people? Does anyone not agree that Walmart is important to any film sales?

 

I dunno... I just feel like I'm alone in this whole argument... :huh: If I'm wrong about things, I'd love to be set straight on it. Preferably by someone who knows about actually getting a feature to market... Everything I have ever learned from reading books, blogs, news sites, etc has told me that I'm not wrong about any of this.

 

PS) I will also add that after further investigation, you say 'a fuller life' was released on multiple countries? Sure it was, according to IMDb those screenings were film festivals and not actual cinema releases into distribution. Anyone with a descent film and some luck can get into film festivals. Based on the IMDb page, it was only screened at a real cinema in New York, with the rest being film festivals. Even the NY could be a film festival it just doesn't say.

 

I quote IMDb

 

 

 

Italy August 2013 Italy 1 September 2013 (Venice Film Festival) Brazil October 2013 (São Paulo International Film Festival) Argentina November 2013 (Mar del Plata Film Festival) Austria November 2013 (Vienna International Film Festival) USA 6 August 2014 (New York City, New York) Germany 11 September 2014 (Oldenburg Film Festival) Canada 11 October 2014 (Festival du Nouveau Cinéma de Montréal)

Edited April 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

Duplicate removed

Edited April 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

How are you affording music or sound effects licenses? I mean, the last feature I finished, we spent more then $25k on music and licensing clearances alone.

 

Are you telling me MUSIC is your big expense? $25k? Well, you can hire a good composer for a few grand who is just starting out who can produce some good music for you... Though there are literally thousands of royalty free tracks available on Musicloops.com in all cinematic styles for as little as $30 to as much as $129 a track, all of which include all clearances for unlimited distribution in all markets.

 

Our music budget is $2,500 by the way.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[JD Hartman]

You claim to have it all figured out, you have all your "I"'s dotted and "T"'s crossed, why are you pursuing a degree in teaching? How is that education relevant or how will it advance your career as a Producer or Director?

[Bill DiPietra]

All this thread has depicted, for pages, has been the many different methods that different people in different places, use. Instead of trying to shove one person's method down another's throat, why not just say respect that and call it a day?...

[Guest]

Instead of trying to shove one person's method down another's throat, why not just say respect that and call it a day?...

 

Waaaaaa? Hardly any point in owning a computer then Bill. :D

 

R,

[Bill DiPietra]

 

Waaaaaa? Hardly any point in owning a computer then Bill. :D

 

R,

 

"Waaaaaa?" Not at all, Richard. But I believe everyone's respective points have been made multiple times. Why drone on about the same concepts using different words?...

[Mark Dunn]

Just get a tub of popcorn and sit back, man.

[Guest]

 

Why drone on about the same concepts using different words?...

 

Are you married? :)

 

R,

[Guest]

Just get a tub of popcorn and sit back, man.

 

Exactly it's free content on the internet. Only slightly more entertaining than watching my fish finder.

 

R,

[Adrian Sierkowski]

 

Are you married? :)

 

R,

Truth.

[Bill DiPietra]

 

Are you married? :)

 

R,

 

LOL...no way I can argue with that retort! ;)

[Landon D. Parks]

Trust me... I'm about through with arguing with Tyler. Perhaps if he'd simply admit that he isn't always right about everything, I'd leave it at that. However, evertime I make perfectly valid points, he wants to argue each one of those points with me. Not just one, but every single point I make he has a major complaint about.

 

You mark my words, he'll have a good comeback for why his amazing movie will never touch the nasty shelves of Walmart. Like EVER!

 

Part of the issue I have is that he is telling me I'm incapable of offering any advice about FEATURE films, yet he has also not yet brought one to market... Or even started working on producing one, and yet he feels perfectly capable of offering advice about how feature filmmakers should go to be successful. Meanwhile, I have been developing a long form priject for a long time... One with an actual budget (no matter how unworthy it's deemed).

 

So trust me, I'd love to simply stop and agree that each person might follow a different path to filmmaking... But every time I make JUST THAT assumption, Mr Purcell seems to feel the need to retort with comments that say his was is the only way to get a feature made and put out there... Even though he has not brought a narrative feature to market yet.

[Tyler Purcell]

DVD still makes up the largest portion of sales in the film industry, surpassing theatrical by a huge margin.

Looks like the books you read are out of date.

 

I don't believe any of these movies did better on DVD then theatrical.

 

http://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/dvd-sales/2015

 

Plus the one thing you keep failing to realize is that those numbers mean jack poop. Disney spent almost 200 million advertising Inside Out. So yes no poop it's going to sell a lot of disks. The measly return they made on DVD's is NOTHING compared to the 856M they've done so far world wide.

 

No movie is going to do well on DVD without a huge advertising campaign and a DVD-only distributor isn't going to invest much.

 

This is not going to change in the next 10 years anyway.

It's already changed dramatically. The big retail/rental companies are out of business (yes Red box and Netflix are still moving along). Most of the big duplication houses I use to a lot of business with (media distributors in Chicago) closed their doors. In fact, the house I'm using now was so happy to get our little DVD run because he said "We're going to have to blow dust off our dvd glass mastering machine". Big multi-million disk releases, they have huge contracts with the biggest duplicator houses and resellers already in place. They get top row placement on the extremely limited "home video" section of the stores.

 

I've been to Walmart, Target, Best Buy and many other stores looking for DVD's since they came out in the late 90's. What I see is a collapsing market both in the stores and from the people I talk to who make disks. Yes, there are still some speciality stores who have tens of thousands of titles, but the vast majority of standard retail establishments, only carry first-run releases today; TV, Documentary and narrative. Our Walmart and Target stores have maybe a few hundred disks + a box somewhere in an isle full of $4.99 disks. It's funny because sometimes you catch a jem in that box, an old movie that hasn't been remastered, the distributor just clearing inventory.

 

Having been on the ground level during the demise of VHS and Laser Disk, I can say once more, DVD is dying fast. It's dying so fast, every time I go to the store looking for a disk, the home video section gets smaller and smaller. Mind you, that's here in LA... which is one of the biggest markets in the US. I'm sure in smaller towns, especially not media rich ones, things will be different. The distributors will place product where they think it will sell. So bravo, your movie will be at Walmart in your home town, but will it be anywhere else?

 

Okay, so by your admission you mainly work on media like commercials and educations stuff. That is great, and I’m sure it gives you access to new people every day of the week. I still fail to see how working on these projects, and bringing one documentary to a distributor, qualifies you to speak for all filmmakers in the industry. Until you have made a feature and got that distributed, are you really any more qualified to make assumptions than I am?

I have made a feature that got distributed and no, it will never be in the $4.99 bin because Criterion doesn't go that low. I also work with people every day who have made features that got distributed (so to quite a few people on this forum).

 

So does it make me more qualified then Richard? No... of course not and I listen to him. But it sure as hell makes me more qualified then someone who hasn't even made ANYTHING from start to finish.

 

Wanna know a little trick I learned years ago... if you're reading books, you aren't making movies. ;)

 

Better to just go out and make product, doesn't matter what it is, then to claim you CAN make product.

 

First, are you really going to tell me your documentary that was screened in LA and NY was seen by HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people?

IMDB is a bit confusing. We did one week releases in those countries you see online, plus a few more that weren't listed. So the film festival got us in the door and we just stayed there and 4 walled for a week. The NYC and LA screenings were a joke in comparison, our film doesn't hit the US market well, it's very much a european film. We've done more screenings in France and Germany then we've done in english speaking countries, literally dozens of them. So yes, we've had A LOT of people see it. Heck, the BBC reviewed it on national television for gosh sakes!

 

In terms of numbers, it's a rough guess based on the audience figures per week. In Europe we paid for screenings, had great advertising through the theater and got our money back. Here in the states it was a bit harder, theaters don't go to bat for smaller films like they use to. So when you 4 wall here, you've gotta do a lot more advertising, which is costly. We tired, but unfortunately the screenings here haven't been good. We may have received a few thousand over the two weeks in NYC/LA and the other random screenings. We've also shown the movie to sold-out screenings at many film schools, those numbers were factored in to that "few hundred thousand" final number. Now that Criterion is distributing it on disk and VOD, we should finally be seeing some money coming back after spending everything we had.

 

I'll be honest, I wasn't in love with our final product. It has good moments, it has a great story that flows well, but like most films, we ran out of money and had to go with what we had. What saved us in the long run was the all-star cast and the subject matter, (history of a famous filmmaker) which hits home for some people who know his work. I personally wouldn't do another doc like this again, especially without more money. I don't know the final figure, but I think we spent around $90k.

 

Second, as for it being watchable, I’m going to tell you this right now – from a production value standpoint – it will be VERY watchable. We did not spend the past year working on the virtual sets and other CG stuff to make something cheesy.

I can't imagine how any of those statements are accurate. I'm not an idiot, it costs tens of thousands of dollars for software and more then a few years of book reading to learn how to do things properly. It also takes a massive amount of computing power, not one CPU with a few GPU's. Most of the facilities I've set up have huge render farms and even lower resolution jobs can take upwards of 10 minutes per frame to render. The complexity of each frame makes a huge difference and it can take 100's of re-renders to get a shot perfect. This is why people hire visual effects houses to do the work because those people have invested in not only render farms, but people who have done high-end visual effects work for years.

 

I've also seen a lot of "do it myself" VFX projects and some of them are very good. But when you back track and read what those filmmakers have made in the past, you realize they've been at it for decades and most of them use the rendering resources at their VFX jobs.

 

Come on... I can't really be the only one here who is seeing this? Would anyone other than Tyler care to tell me what part I am wrong about here? Considering my lack of actual experience, is anything I have said false or a lie? Have a mislead people? Does anyone not agree that Walmart is important to any film sales?

Biggest thing I've learned in my few years doing this is that betting on a "technology" as your distribution method isn't smart. DVD is a last resort, not a number one distribution method. Why is that? Because in todays modern world, if you aren't shoving content in people's faces, they aren't going to find it. How many people really buy stuff out of that $4.99 bin? If you sell to the lowest grade audience, who finds your product passively, how in any way is that going to help? If your film was good, you could put it on youtube and maybe get a million views. I doubt any distributor will press more then a few thousand DVD's for someone's first feature.

 

Everything I have ever learned from reading books, blogs, news sites, etc has told me that I'm not wrong about any of this.

Well again, people won't tell you the truth online or news sites. They don't want you to know the nitty gritty, that's what they get paid for, why would they tell you? Books are also suspicious because things change so fast in this industry, you read a book written a few years ago, even if it's published now, things are very different today then they were back then. People even try to amend their books prior to publication because everything is so in flux, but a lot of times they don't bother.

 

Remember, all people want to do is take your money. They could care less if the "education" they're giving is accurate. It's not their job to give you accurate information, if they did, you could do everything on your own and bypass them.

[Landon D. Parks]

You claim to have it all figured out, you have all your "I"'s dotted and "T"'s crossed, why are you pursuing a degree in teaching? How is that education relevant or how will it advance your career as a Producer or Director?

Hold on there a second... When did I say I had it all figured out? The points I make are all factual, and can be verified by external sources.

 

When exactly did I say I knew everything about it? I don't recall that. Perhaps in my younger days I was rather pompass in my attempt to make it appear I was a big dog in the industry (don't beleive me? Go read some of my earlier forum posts). However, I'm now a 28 year old adult with a life, a job, a legal production company, a great co-producer, and most of all - money sitting in a bank account right this second, awaiting production.

 

So no, I certainly do not have it all figured out. If I did, I would not be wasting my time arguing on this thread about it. I do have some of it figured out though, as evidenced by my ability to post produce a documentary through a DCP, and get that in the hands of an aggrigator to begin getting into the market of vod, after its film festival run.

 

Why am I working on a degree in education, and why did I get a business degree before? Because I'm smart and know not to put all my eggs in one basket. I may well not become rich off if this or any project, regardless of its distribution.

 

I'd much rather have a valid backup plan...

 

*edited for corrections after attempting to type it on my tiny phone*

Edited April 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[John E Clark]

 

Grants are hard to get, yes -- probably near impossible unless your a nonprofit making an environmental documentary. However, tax credits are still pretty strong. Here in Ohio, if you spend $300,000 on a production in the state, the state will give you 30% of that back as a refundable tax credit. Effectively, that means you can make a $300,000 film for what ends up being $210,000. Or putting it another way, you can make a movie that looks like it cost 30% more than it actually did. This is all assuming you can find someone to loan you the tax credit up front, because it's paid to you at the end of the year I believe.

 

I realize there are 'tax' incentives... but those only work because one is spending money... so I have to spend $300K to get a 'tax rebate' of $100K... that may allow me to impress an investor(*) or perhaps a person willing to 'loan' a production money (aka throw it down a rat hole... never to be seen again...).

 

But for the small budget such incentives have no actual value...

 

*While not in the Film Business, I do have some experience pitching products to 'investors' and it is amazing how skitish they are about almost anything that isn't an absolutely 'sure deal to make them billions' there are a few unicorn/angel investors... but for the most part, most investors go with 'tried and true' with just slight variations to make a slight market edge.

 

That seems to hold for the Film industry as well from all that I have read.

 

Since I've lived in So. Cal all my life I can comment on the large number of people I have known over the years who have either gone to "hollywood" and returned disappointed, or 'gone' and just... disappeared... without even leaving a trace on IMDB... for some 70s vintage sexploitation film... even...

 

So, I can see why some people would like to avoid LA but still some how be successful in making 'hollywood' style films... as opposed to doing local commercials or event, aka wedding, photography or 'video'...

 

What it takes is infrastructure, and as mentioned, New Zealand (to pick a place that is about 14-16 hour plane ride from LA and so is about as far form LA one can get and still be on planet Earth...) had little infrastructure in the late 80s early 90s... enter Lord of the Rings.. WETA... and some dedication on the part of Jackson to use the dollars that came in from LoR to build that infrastructure.

 

I also used an example of Rosarito Mexico where Cameron built a production facility to shoot "Titanic"... and because of the lack of developing a filmmaking infrastructure in the Tijuana/Rosarito area (they are about 30 or so miles apart) the facility has languish...

 

Are there Lottery Winners... sure Jackson and Rodriguez are definitely winners, and both have taken the effort to create the infrastructure they need to continue.

 

Does that hold for someone in Bugtussel Oklahoma? In general no...

 

I think digital will democratize where content is made... but it will still require a great amount of effort outside of the big city centers that have been part of Hollywood production in the past.

Edited April 1, 2016 by John E Clark

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, you can hire a good composer for a few grand who is just starting out who can produce some good music for you...

Right, on his midi keyboard. Just what audiences want to hear.

 

Though there are literally thousands of royalty free tracks available on Musicloops.com in all cinematic styles for as little as $30 to as much as $129 a track, all of which include all clearances for unlimited distribution in all markets.

Royalty free music has one caveat, it's not "free" if you're selling the product that it's associated with.

 

I've worked with almost all the music houses; Mega Tracks, Freeplay Music, Premium beat, etc... These guys charge a lot of money if you SELL the movie to someone else. If you self distribute on Youtube, the licensing is very different. Once you hit a permanent media format or any theater, the pricing will skyrocket. This is why most people do their own score, but for $2500 that's really hard to do outside of a midi keyboard and samples.

[John E Clark]

Right, on his midi keyboard. Just what audiences want to hear.

 

 

Royalty free music has one caveat, it's not "free" if you're selling the product that it's associated with.

 

I've worked with almost all the music houses; Mega Tracks, Freeplay Music, Premium beat, etc... These guys charge a lot of money if you SELL the movie to someone else. If you self distribute on Youtube, the licensing is very different. Once you hit a permanent media format or any theater, the pricing will skyrocket. This is why most people do their own score, but for $2500 that's really hard to do outside of a midi keyboard and samples.

 

The 'music use' rights for film... aka 'synchronization' rights is abysmal. If the various rights owners wanted to make a big difference, they could organize licensing buros to become nickel snatchers for the mass of 'small' production use.

 

And by the way... I have my own midi keyboard... nice Yamaha using acoustic piano mechanism (Yamaha makes a line of acoustic pianos as well...)... thank you...

Edited April 1, 2016 by John E Clark

[Guest]

I have been developing a long form priject for a long time... One with an actual budget (no matter how unworthy it's deemed).

 

Just make it Landon and let the chips fall where they may. The studios green-light mega budget flops every year, so you have just as much of a chance of succeeding as anyone else.

 

R,

[Landon D. Parks]

I'm going to simply agree that there are multiple ways to reach an end target, not just one. Rather you can agree with me on this or not I cannot say, though I at least seem to have Richard's agreement on THAT ONE front - that there is more than one way to skin a cat in this industry.

 

I have made a feature that got distributed and no, it will never be in the $4.99 bin because Criterion doesn't go that low. I also work with people every day who have made features that got distributed (so to quite a few people on this forum).

 

Nor does Disney when it first releases movies... To suggest that Criterion movies will never end up in the dollar bin is say that Criterion movies are better than every other studio product out there, because most end up there when they don't sell all their copies. Criterion is not the one that puts them there - the retailer does.

 

I actually just got back from Target... You know what was sitting on their DVD shelf? No less five separate Criterion titles. Since earlier you mentioned 'being on the shelves of target is a sign of failure', exactly what will your opinion be IF your movie is one of the lucky few Criterion puts out to end up there? I'm very interested to hear this one...

 

But, perhaps Criterion is so much better than Disney, Warner Bros., Lionsgate, and others that they would never end up in that dreaded Clearance bin... :o

 

I can't imagine how any of those statements are accurate. I'm not an idiot, it costs tens of thousands of dollars for software and more then a few years of book reading to learn how to do things properly. It also takes a massive amount of computing power, not one CPU with a few GPU's. Most of the facilities I've set up have huge render farms and even lower resolution jobs can take upwards of 10 minutes per frame to render. The complexity of each frame makes a huge difference and it can take 100's of re-renders to get a shot perfect. This is why people hire visual effects houses to do the work because those people have invested in not only render farms, but people who have done high-end visual effects work for years.

I've also seen a lot of "do it myself" VFX projects and some of them are very good. But when you back track and read what those filmmakers have made in the past, you realize they've been at it for decades and most of them use the rendering resources at their VFX jobs.

 

Well, I'll say it again... This was not some 'backyard' operation. I'll also say this: You assume I'm a dummy when it comes to VFX work, or that I couldn't possibly know anything about it. This couldn't be further from the truth - CGI and other modeling and compositing has been an interest of mine since long before filmmaking even. You seem to be under the impression that one needs a massive server farm to render out a 2k file. That could not be further from the truth. Of course, I do have my own 'blender render' farm at home. It's not ILM sized mind you, but it does include 6 PC's with dual GTX cards in each one. Using Cycles render, I can push out a single 2048x858 frame on a 100,000 polygon scene in less than 20 seconds, setting the sampling rate to between 250 and 350, depending on the needs of the scene. Even better? For the less demanding background CG work - Element3D from within After Effects renders out about 5-6x faster than that for the same settings, with only a single graphics card in my workstation.

 

Of course, I'm not a 'one man show' either. I have been working with hobbyist and amateur modelers, painters, and riggers for the past year to actually produce some of the product. Some of the product is bought from the likes of Turbosquid and Daz3D, which will provide you fully 2k-4k ready, textured models for a very good price.

 

In modern times, to make a good VFX driven movie, one need not know modeling at all... One can simply spend a few grand on pre-built models, and 'arrange' them in your scene if you so desire (though you're movie might not be fully 'original' looking, at least when it comes to sets). And these models are not cartoonish either. While I am not going to share any of my own renders for this project, a simple look around Daz3D (I use their models for book covers and illustrations), you'll find some VERY good cinema-ready models, most for under $30. One model to use an an example of this is here (we are not using this model, but the ones we do are of the same or better quality):

 

Now that is NOT my render, it is a direct link to an image of the model available for sale on their website. However, the quality of that render is what you can expect from this project. I share this only to give you an 'idea' about the production value.

 

The reason why VFX in Hollywood cost so much money is because the VFX studios KNOW Hollywood has the money to spend. Same reasons Directors demand millions of dollars when they could live perfectly happy lives on 1/10 of that. The reason Hollywood films with a lot of VFX take a long time to render out is because a lot of them, like Pixar and ILM, still rely on their massive CPU server farms - which are often times hundreds of times slower than a GPU render would be, not to mention many of these scenes are rendered out at 4k or even 6k resolutions.

 

Of course, you seem to think I'm an idiot about all this... You seem to think I'm under the impression I'm going to render out 3,000 VFX shots from my one single, tiny computer, and I plan to do it all in a few weeks. Nothing could be further from the truth. We haven't even began rendering anything real yet - only working on the 'virtual sets', so that they can be manipulating during shooting to show the actors their their completed environments. Once all them CG elements are put together into their respective sets, we'll begin production - and then once that is done, we'll begin rendering - and the post process for this project is going to be at least another year after production has wrapped, maybe longer.

 

BUT, I can talk about how nice is it all day. Until I have something to show for it, it's just my opinion. If you follow the thread I'll start in the 'in production' section soon, you'll be able to see just what quality one can attain without the need for ILM at your side. Maybe you won't, I don't know :).

 

Biggest thing I've learned in my few years doing this is that betting on a "technology" as your distribution method isn't smart. DVD is a last resort, not a number one distribution method. Why is that? Because in todays modern world, if you aren't shoving content in people's faces, they aren't going to find it. How many people really buy stuff out of that $4.99 bin? If you sell to the lowest grade audience, who finds your product passively, how in any way is that going to help? If your film was good, you could put it on youtube and maybe get a million views. I doubt any distributor will press more then a few thousand DVD's for someone's first feature.

 

No one should bet on technology as any method for distribution. Your goal for distribution should be appropriate for the project. If you're making a feature, of course you want to see it in theaters. What filmmakers wouldn't? The reality is though, many features are released direct to DVD every year, and they can make a bucket load of money. Because they didn't break the bank making them, they don't have to recoup millions of dollars to turn a profit.

 

If you're making a web series, I'd aim to get it on a REAL network before putting it out there on Youtube. Not saying you will, and not saying Youtube is a bad way to get noticed, either...

 

As for how many disc's one will press for a filmmakers first feature: that depends on the feature. Is Johnny Depp in it? Does it have a title that would bring press in the industry? Is it based on a famous book? There are more than a few criteria used by distributors to determine the sales potential for any DVD, rather it's had a theatrical run or not. Just because it's someones first film does not mean they will not press more than a few thousand discs.

 

someone who hasn't even made ANYTHING from start to finish.

 

Not true of course. While I wasn't involved with The wonderful world of oz, from the very beginning, I did bring the title through post and into DCP, with submissions out to film festivals - and a budget and e&o in place for for aggregation to Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, iTunes, and a few other outlets, not to mention DVD.

 

---

 

Look, Tyler... I'm not trying to push your buttons. I'm really not. I respect you a lot, and I have no doubt you have more 'industry' experience than me, I'm certainly not saying you don't. I certainly know there are many others here who have a lot more experience than I do, even more LIFE experience than I do, let alone professional experience. I respect and admire you and each and every other professional. However, to assume that all the advice I give is false or misleading is sort of elitist in my opinion, when much of the advice I gave on the original topic of this thread (Why LA) was to move where the jobs are... Which, I'm sure most would agree, applies not just to the film industry - but many others as well.

 

So in that regards, I respect and admire you for your work. I certainly don't enjoy nit-picking or disagreeing with you. However, I do have my own opinions on the matter - and I'm simply stating those here. You're welcome to take them with a grain a salt, as I'd suggest anyone do.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks