Are distributors interested in short films?

[Landon D. Parks]

Crowdfunding should only be done when you have enough followers to make it worthwhile. Even the 'staff picks' aren't funded completely by stranger. That does not mean you have to have those followers from YouTube, though you'll need some form of large marketing base like a Facebook Page with 10,000 or more subscribers (and you'll need to invest in 'boosted posts' to reach them all).

 

We were able to raise about $3,000 for finishing funds for the documentary I worked on with Kickstarter - but then again the primary producer already had a large friend base of people who liked Oz, which was the theme the documentary was set on.

[Carl Looper]

Yes, crowd funding works according to your social network.

 

If your social network is small then so too will be those visiting your crowd funding site. Of course if and when you do put together a crowd funding site that will tend to increase your social network a little, simply because those not already in your social network, can still independantly stumble across your crowd funding site. But you will increase the probability of success if you can drive more people to the site by other means - eg. by leveraging your existing social network.

 

But keep in mind that your social network would need to (obviously) include those who might invest in your project. Your close friends are not going to be the best bet as investors.

 

So you need to tap into new networks specific to your project. And promote your crowd funding site through those specific networks.

 

A crowd funding site can also be understood as an adjunct to a traditional project proposal, where you otherwise, in a real world setting, target a specific group of people already understood as investors, eg. doing a show and tell in a board room. At the end of such a talk you can give out a card with the address of the online version of such: a crowd funding site. A kind of virtual version of your talk. It extends the scope of your talk and maintains it's viability beyond just the allotted time of your talk.

 

I'm currently preparing a crowd funding site that targets a specific cultural network, but it will be from within that specific cultural network that the crowd funding site is promoted. Not the other way around.

 

C

[Guest]

My point is that no one is making "narrative" short after "narrative" short, posting them on Youtube and making a living at it for any sustained period of time.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Probably not, although it's probably just a matter of time.

 

Come to think of it, how long has Freddie Wong been at it? It's kinda narrative.

[Guest]

The ROI would never work, you would have to do very high quality work to attract enough of an audience to generate any money, and that would take time and money. To sustain such an operation for even a year would be a huge undertaking.

 

I know there are "youtube" stars that are making daily talk shows and what not, but sustained short narrative work would be next to impossible.

 

R,

[Max Field]

 

you would have to do very high quality work to attract enough of an audience to generate any money

While it sounds like I've been defending Youtube, I would like to reaffirm the average talent of guys currently making money off Youtube is extremely lackluster compared to TV/Film.

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm not particularly holding this up as an example of cinematographic beauty, but it is, broadly, narrative fiction, and it is being done on youtube for money.

 

 

Big brand names, too.

[Carl Looper]

 

 

While it sounds like I've been defending Youtube, I would like to reaffirm the average talent of guys currently making money off Youtube is extremely lackluster compared to TV/Film.

 

 

Yes. That's the thing. The majority of stuff will not be that rewarding, or making that much money. But the sheer size of youtube means there must be exceptions, ie. those who do make money. But it's the majority of material that defines the rule. In other words, as a rule, you don't make much money (if any).

 

The rule works against you.

 

The exceptions being just that: exceptions.

 

TV and cinema are interesting because they form a pre-digestive system. Before a work reaches the screen, it passes through a kind of filter, that filters out, according to the rules of a much smaller group of people, that which it deems will not be viable (rightly or wrongly). The work is effectively curated (by the powers that be). It's the complete opposite of something like youtube, where it's a much larger number of people that determine what reaches the screen.

 

But even in the cinema, investment can be in the form of statistics. So one might invest in x number of films of which one out of x will be the exception which brings in the dollars. One doesn't need to know in advance which one that will be. Diversity will be a good strategy. The idea is that the one that brings in the dollars will pay for the others that didn't. But of course, once you set up such a system you'll start seeing a kind of pattern in the numbers where a particular kind of film is winning the lottery more than others. A kind of get-rich-quick-system can take hold of the system - ie. one can start believing that one knows the winning formula and can dispense with funding x films and just fund the one - the one that will win. This can hold for a little while but a crash will eventually occur.

 

Its perhaps a wise thing to move and back and forth a bit between these two models. Of course, only big capital is really capable of this sort of thing.

 

C

Edited April 11, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Max Field]

 

I'm not particularly holding this up as an example of cinematographic beauty, but it is, broadly, narrative fiction, and it is being done on youtube for money.

 

 

Big brand names, too.

I believe the problem some other guys in this thread are having is the fact you can't get a nice following without using said brand names. Yes that sucks, but society is wired by familiarity. The average Youtube viewer prefers to watch the same flavor over and over while rarely trying a new subject. Even if the familiar source stops making content, they will still subconsciously refuse to explore new outlets.

[Max Field]

 

Yes. That's the thing. The majority of stuff will not be that rewarding, or making that much money. But the sheer size of youtube means there must be exceptions, ie. those who do make money. But it's the majority of material that defines the rule. In other words, as a rule, you don't make much money (if any).

 

The rule works against you.

Well my only question to that would be, do you apply this thinking to the rest of show business in general? If yes, it really comes down to a difference in who's motivated for what, and it wouldn't make sense for us to go on about what essentially comes down to an opinion on way of life.

[Jan Tore Soerensen]

The idea that you're going to have any sort of a lifestyle for 10+ years working full-time, 52 weeks a year, as a short filmmaker is just plain ridiculous.

 

R,

I guess it depends on definition, but people are making good money on music videos and commericials, and I think we could agree that they both are short films.

[Carl Looper]

Well my only question to that would be, do you apply this thinking to the rest of show business in general? If yes, it really comes down to a difference in who's motivated for what, and it wouldn't make sense for us to go on about what essentially comes down to an opinion on way of life.

 

Well no, because film and television (the theatre, the circus, etc) constitute a pre-digestive system. The powers that be are smaller than the audience.

 

In social media the powers that be (in terms of content) are larger than the audience!

 

The real powers that be in social media are actually the technocratic system behind the social media. To the technocrat, the content becomes irrelevant. The audience are making the content !!!!

 

C

[Carl Looper]

I guess it depends on definition, but people are making good money on music videos and commericials, and I think we could agree that they both are short films.

 

Yeah that's a really good point.

 

People make a living from television ads, music videos, wedding videos, corporate docos, and the list goes on. And they are all short films.

 

And if we otherwise define short films as only those that don't make money all we're doing is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

C

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea but Carl's point is kinda spot on. Like it or not, 99% of youtube is poop. Heck, I don't watch anything on youtube from members who make lots of money off it. Not because I refuse, but because none of their content is interesting to me.

 

Yet, there is absolutely a formula to all of this. The problem is, it costs money to build a successful formula. Most of the guys on youtube who are successful, they simply lucked out. They made a video with their buddies and it went viral because their buddies promoted it heavily to the right group of people. The guys who have made money on youtube, now have the resources to build that formula. That's how they continue to be successful. Even if their channels are lame, at least they're making a living off the internet.

 

I have a great concept for a youtube channel myself. I bought all the websites associated, bought the youtube channel, already have a direction for the show and how I'd market it. The only problem is money and it's hard to be creative 24/7, being pulled in different directions to survive in the industry AND build an all new web show that will take a poop load of work in of itself. So my idea is on pause, but I think I've got a brilliant viral formula. Not what I anticipated on doing for a living, but hey, why not?

[Max Field]

 

The problem is, it costs money to build a successful formula.

 

If by "money" you mean more than a couple hundred, then no it does not cost money to have a successful formula. Buy a Blue Yeti microphone, pirate Adobe Audition, and write quick condescending reviews for every movie/video game/album that comes out and why you hate it for arbitrary reasons, and you have yourself a winning formula. Have come in contact with plenty of dudes making at least 15k doing that (if you know how to budget, it's technically a living).

That's just one example, and that example requires the talent of sounding intellectual while speaking (If you're British, half that job is done). If you can draw, buy a hundred dollar Wacom Tablet and pirate Flash CS3, get in with the right animator crowd (not hard) and the gate to making at least 5 digits a year has been opened to you.

 

Those two formulas are multi-year commitments, but I'd invite anyone here to give their story on how they started making bank off cinematography in a month.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Tyler Purcell]

LOL! But the whole point is to do what you love and get paid for it.

[Guest]

I've read about 50 stories in the trades about guys who sign feature deals with a major studio as a result of a studio person seeing a YouTube short, then nothing ever comes of it.

 

I guess they forget to tell these guys that their creative vision will be stuck in development for five years.

 

R,

[Max Field]

 

LOL! But the whole point is to do what you love and get paid for it.

The people I've met doing that love it. If I personally had to resort to complaining about video games on youtube for 20k a year I'd brush my teeth with bleach every morning.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Landon D. Parks]

I've read about 50 stories in the trades about guys who sign feature deals with a major studio as a result of a studio person seeing a YouTube short, then nothing ever comes of it.

 

I guess they forget to tell these guys that their creative vision will be stuck in development for five years.

 

R,

 

If anyone desires to work work with the studio system, I invite them to watch Project Greenlight. You'll quickly decide you don't really want to. And that is AFTER the deal is made, I cannot even fathom the amount of work and luck it takes to develop a studio feature and get it green-lit in first place.

 

No, I think most filmmakers would be better suited to approach their desire to create art from a business stand point. How can you make money with it? Sure you can make a living in Hollywood (and a nice one, too), but the odds of winning the lottery are much better than you becoming a studio producer / director. You're much better off approaching your art like I am doing - working to build an actual business behind a series of projects. If you play your cards rights, and invest enough in the beginning, and have the money to 'wing it' for a year or two until things start looking better, you can probably have a better chance at making a living that way.

 

It does happen. Look at Fine Bros., Geek & Sundry, Shay Carl, etc... Sure it's a long shot, but so are your odds of becoming a successful filmmaker. I'm not talking about simply 'working' in the industry either, I'm talking creating your art in the industry as a filmmaker. Film, much like other art, is often times a labor of love and not money. You really need to ask yourself this: Can you do your art on the side and hold a real job? If so, that is probably a more viable option.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Phil Rhodes]

I don't think anyone's making any money on music videos, specifically. There'll always be the high end, of course, but they're vanishingly rare. One of the reasons I stopped shooting so much was that pay on music videos went from very little to absolutely none.

 

It's a shame - it can be quite a pure expression of the art, if you look at it the right way, and they're often great fun to do. These days, though, I suspect there people who produce them have realised that there's no direct way to make money out of them, at least not unless you're already famous, so there's not much point in spending money making them. Ultimately, they're probably right.

 

P

[Jan Tore Soerensen]

There are people everywhere making money off of film. All kinds of film. Heck, I have been in the business for less than a year, and I'm making money on film. Not the kind of money that will buy me a house, but I figure I'll get there. It's not that hard, if you're decent at networking, selling and willing to go the extra mile.

 

And honestly, I would much rather be on a passionate route of being a director, than to work some hellish job that will get me nowhere. Even if it takes me 10 years to get to where I want to be.

 

Fun fact. It took me about 3 months of talking to people and making phone calls to get work for two of the biggest restaurant chains here in my country. Is that comparable to working on a blockbuster? Hell no, but it is me working on my passion.

[Phil Rhodes]

In terms of difficulty of obtaining the work, yes, it probably is comparable.

[Michael LaVoie]

Wolphin was a DVD magazine of the best shorts from the biggest festivals. A lot of it from famous actors and directors. The quote below from the curator Brent Hoff sums it up best.

 

"I think it’s just that you still can’t see a lot of these films anywhere else. Spike’s not putting his Al Gore doc up on YouTube. Adam Curtis isn’t putting The Power of Nightmares up on YouTube. Khadija Al-Salami isn’t putting up A Stranger in Her Own City up on YouTube. A lot of these films don’t exist anywhere else. They’re not films that are made to go viral and eventually have Coke sponsor the sequel. They’re not long enough for television to program them in the U.S. They’re not going to be programmed in theaters, but some of them are really important films. And I think that some of our funny or interesting films are funnier and better than a lot of what’s online. Every place online right now wants to be the place that people go to for the great stuff, but I really don’t think that any place has established itself as the place where great stuff lives. I think we’re really one of the only ones."

 

I believe Fandor is the new "online" Wolphin for short films. However I think that the best part about Fandor is that they are actually open to submissions. You can send them your short and you don't need to have won the Jury Prize at Sundance for them to look at it. To me that's pretty huge. They aren't a closed club of insiders. Filmmakers whose work gets licensed get a portion of subscription fees. May not pay the rent but having work in a curated library where it earns you a fan base and peer respect can't hurt when it comes to earning money as a filmmaker down the road.

[Phil Rhodes]

I do think Adam Curtis is talked up perhaps more than he deserves, but it may just be that his area of interest coincides closely with my own, so I've read a lot of similar material.

 

(NB - if anyone's wondering what I'm doing at the moment, I instinctively hit the control+return key combination when I'd finished typing that sentence, which is the add-to-render-queue keystroke in After Effects. Kill me. Kill me now.)

[Max Field]

 

Kill me. Kill me now.

Okay.