Jump to content

How much money does the average straight-to-DVD film make?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
Don't fall into the "every piracy is a lost sale" trap. Most of the people who pirated the film haven't stolen anything from you; there is no lost sale.

 

P

Well, they have definitely watched it illegally, but whether the producer lost a sale or not is a whole other issue. Many people simply rip movies because they are free but they would never pay to see them.

A few years ago a friend of mine was at the Time Warner stock holders meeting and they were claiming that piracy was costing them hundreds of millions every year, most notably in China. This is clearly not the case (sounds good to stock holders though) and the studios profits continue to increase year after year. This is in direct contrast to the music industry which actually DID take a huge hit due to piracy. We've seen the aftermath of that. It's clearly changed the music business. They changed because they HAD to. This isn't the case at all with movies.

The fact is that people are always going to find a way to steal. But if you put out a good product people will always be willing to pay for it. Putting out crap and blaming bad sales on piracy is just a cop out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil you're kidding yourself if you think a movie that leaks to the internet a day before it officially opened is not mostly "lost sales" with the people who download it.

 

Why would someone download and store something unless they are a "professional" pirate?

 

 

As far as the music industry being different, it is. It is an industry that, unfortunately, produces products with smaller file sizes and easier compressions.

 

As for h.264, it is impressive, but most illegal downloading I've seen *isn't* impressive. It looks attrocious, like AVI files.

 

With the exception of what you showed me and a copy of "Lord of the Rings" that, interestingly enough had an anti-piracy, for Academy screening use only with an 800 number that flashed along the bottom the whole time (so someone in the Academy pirated it, I guess), 100% of the bootlegs I've seen look like sh&*.

 

Should the industry produce a product that the customer wants, like h264 instead of (now quite affordable) Blu-Rays, maybe. I'll say sure to be agreeable.

 

Then again, the industry should abandon 35mm film, because Joe Consumer and everyone else knows that digital is clearly bette.r It's definitely cooler.

 

SHould the music industry eliminate mp3s altogether and just punch to vinyl again because a large part of the market is moving back to that?

 

No, it's ultimately a money game, to make product as cheaply as possible and profit as much as possible.

 

 

It's not up to the consumer, though, to dictate terms to industry. That is what competition and the free market is for. You can't shoot movies on the Viper when Joe Shmo next door shot his next feature all on IMAX.

 

It's when industry gets happilly complacent and competition slows and things get boringly standardized that the penny-pinchers get to come in and dictate terms.

 

 

You talk about h.264 compression, Phil. Do you reallize that a 16mm print has roughly the same resolution? Where is the advancement, other than you stole yours for free and didn't have to use a gun or a getaway car to get it?

 

They were pirating movies in the '60s too, you know, renting prints, cheaply duping them, and sending the dupe back if they were really clever. But that took money and skill, not just a mouse-click.

 

 

I have to admit, I listen to quite a bit of illegally-obtained music. We're used to it, with radios in our cars. Just like with TV. Why pay for shows that you can own for the cost of a VHS tape?

 

But without advertising money to pay for it, we can't turn around and steal it, just because we are spoiled and accustomed to others' hard earn money paying for the art that entertains us.

 

The movie industry is a pre-radio pre-TV holdover, to be honest. It probably isn't going to be able to survive unless it keeps getting better, better than a hacker can possibly compress into an h.264 file.

 

3D, higher framerates, IMAX, are the ways to go, not dumbing things down and embracing art that isn't paid for. Should filmmakers be reduced to the same level as someone playing a guitar on a street corner, to only be paid with loose change by people who are entertained and not too busy to bother?

 

Surely, there is room for art in this world. Granted, VHS or DVD isn't the realm of high-art, but then again, who are we to say? Transformers 2 isn't high art either.

 

 

Back to music: I only ever bought six CDs; it's a tragedy my car doesn't have a tape player because I have hundreds. I thrift them. I don't have $14 to throw down on a piece of plastic that cost 10¢ to make, but I do have 10¢ to throw down on a tape that probably cost a dollar to make. And vinyl. . . I love vinyl. But you have to look for it. You aren't paying for pristine condition and tight manufacturing tolerances, you're giving that up, but you're still getting the music for practically nothing, again because SOMEONE ELSE PAID FOR IT. So I enjoy the lure of free music here on this wretched machine that wastes hours of my life every day, but when I want to do it right, it is worth the extra effort and my money. I'LL BUY MY MUSIC, NEW, ON VINYL. It's up to you to decide from a misleading trailer, or the maybe only good track on the album on the radio if the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

Now, in the theatre business, if you are unwilling to shell out an attrocious $10 to sit in the dark for 90 minutes, you can still see the movie for free, WHEN SOMEONE ELSE pays for it, like an advertiser or a television studio. You can't have it right away, and enjoy the same level of quality in the theatre. At least you shouldn't be able to. . .

 

. You know the saying: "You get what you pay for."

Edited by Karl Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Phil you're kidding yourself if you think a movie that leaks to the internet a day before it officially opened is not mostly "lost sales" with the people who download it.

 

Sorry, I just don't accept that. I think the overwhelming majority of pirates are people who wouldn't spend money on a ticket to see something any more than they'd buy the DVD, regardless of the availability if pirate media. You can argue about exactly what proportion that is, and I completely accept that piracy will cost a certain amount of sales, but I believe (and that's all anyone can do) that it's a vanishingly small proportion.

 

Why would someone download and store something unless they are a "professional" pirate?

 

Usually because they want to watch it, or might in the future. Bragging rights, completism, and the knowledge that it's quite easy to get recent stuff but gets progressively harder as things age, are also factors.

 

As for h.264, it is impressive, but most illegal downloading I've seen *isn't* impressive. It looks attrocious, like AVI files.

 

Technical point of order: AVI files can use a wide variety of compression codecs, including h.264. If you use too low a bit rate, even h.264 will start to fall apart. Practically all movie piracy uses h.264, or a motion-compsensated intra-frame DCT codec of similar ability.

 

With the exception of what you showed me and a copy of "Lord of the Rings" that, interestingly enough had an anti-piracy, for Academy screening use only with an 800 number that flashed along the bottom the whole time (so someone in the Academy pirated it, I guess), 100% of the bootlegs I've seen look like sh&*.

 

This is certainly a risk. You can selectively search for things with "blu-ray rip" or similar in the title, but it's not entirely reliable and you're probably as likely to get an unwatchable industry-originated ringer. This is one of the more irksome things about it and makes it even more irritating that the industry doesn't offer a more reliable, properly-authorised service. I'm convinced that future generations will look back with amusement on the film industry's refusal to service a huge and obvious market segment.

 

It's not up to the consumer, though, to dictate terms to industry.

 

Well, actually, I think you'll find it is, to a certain extent. Either party can choose freely not to engage in business with the other. I refuse to buy blu-ray, for instance, because it's such a bad deal.

 

You talk about h.264 compression, Phil. Do you reallize that a 16mm print has roughly the same resolution? Where is the advancement, other than you stole yours for free and didn't have to use a gun or a getaway car to get it?

 

Because the pirate isn't depriving anyone of anything. You steal a 16mm print, the owner lacks it. You dupe a movie file, nobody loses.

 

The movie industry is a pre-radio pre-TV holdover, to be honest. It probably isn't going to be able to survive unless it keeps getting better, better than a hacker can possibly compress into an h.264 file.

 

God I hope not, because h.264 is the way the industry does it too, on blu-ray! In point of fact, the compression techniques used by the pirates are usually somewhat in advance of what the industry is doing, because the industry has to create media that complex hardware devices will play, whereas the pirates can move faster because they're invariably using software players.

 

Should filmmakers be reduced to the same level as someone playing a guitar on a street corner, to only be paid with loose change by people who are entertained and not too busy to bother?

 

In my part of the world, that's already effectively the case.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you don't mind, then, if budgets shrink from one extreme to another, like what happened with music videos, Phil?

 

As far as Blu-ray prices here, it's a slight increase, $25/Blu-ray vs. $15 for DVDs. Tapes were going for $29.95 when they first came out, in the early '80s.

 

So who is really getting ripped off in terms of what they are giving away after you factor in for inflation?

 

The ripoff, I'd argue, was DVDs as they had Blu-ray and HD-DVD before they brought out DVD. Again, digital (wow :rolleyes: ) with really no better quality than Beta. Easily damaged, some skipped right out of the box, and it saves the studios money on tape. For rentals, I definitely would've preferred them staying with VHS because renting any product subject to scratching seems idiotic.

 

Laserdiscs were a similar rip-off to tape when it first came out (weren't some people paying hundreds of dollars on them?), but the geeks flocked to them because they were digital.

 

 

Ultimately, again, who is "paying" for all of this? When people pirate movies, the industry is forced to raise prices to pay its own bills. This means charging yet more at the box office or at the video store. The same factor is responsible for healtcare premiums skyrocketing here. People who want a "free ride" get it. Then the indistry turns around and finds people who can pay for it (the insured).

 

So we are paying for your righteous habbits.

 

 

Shame on you for working in "pictures" and pirating pictures. You really ought know better. As a matter of principal I will not pirate movies. I have some friends in the MPAA that are very interested in meeting people like you ;)

 

As far as the U.K. filmworkers being reduced to street-corner performers already, sorry to hear that that is practically your situation already, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Look at it this way Phil: You have a bigger gallon, a faster speed limit, and one whole hell of a lot less enemies than, say the United States, so it isn't all "rainy days" right? What about that big studio they are/were building at Shepherton? The pound is still with us, albeit in a, to me, senseless decimal form. As far as the BBC banning film, why aren't you applauding? Or are you remaining carefully neutral again?

Edited by Karl Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, what about this site? It is free to us, but it has real bills and advertisers and sustaining members (throw money in the guitar case instead of buying a latte on the subway.)

 

If they all stopped paying, should Tim host this site for free?

 

 

 

It is very easy to throw stones at "the man" until you meet him and work on the inside for a while. Should labs start giving away film prints because they are a "ripoff" at $2,000 a pop?

 

One other comment on piracy, and then I'm done; the people who drive Cadillacs and live in mansions aren't the ones that get hurt by all of this. The loaders, grips, and poor crew are the first to get the door. I guarantee you Bruce Willis and Halle Berry's accountants aren't sharpening the ones looking for second jobs as a result of your irresponsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So, you don't mind, then, if budgets shrink from one extreme to another, like what happened with music videos, Phil?

 

Did I say that?

 

Laserdiscs were a similar rip-off to tape when it first came out (weren't some people paying hundreds of dollars on them?), but the geeks flocked to them because they were digital.

 

In point of fact laserdiscs were (are) analog; it's a composite video signal stamped directly into the disc. But I take your point.

 

 

the industry is forced to raise prices to pay its own bills.

 

Drivel! As was mentioned above, the biggest studios are making large and ever larger profits right now. If that's the position they're taking (and it often is), it's an argument that holds about as much water as a bucket with no bottom.

 

Shame on you for working in "pictures" and pirating pictures.

 

I don't. I have friends who pirate widely, but generally the chances of ending up with a lemon are too high to make it worthwhile, at least in the genres that interest me. As was mentioned above, adolescent action movies are far easier to get than anything interesting.

 

I have some friends in the MPAA that are very interested in meeting people like you

 

Happily, while the MPAA may have practically government-body status in the US, they've traditionally found it difficult to project much power beyond US borders. Thank christ.

 

You have a bigger gallon, a faster speed limit

 

And I don't drive.

 

-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happily, while the MPAA may have practically government-body status in the US, they've traditionally found it difficult to project much power beyond US borders. Thank christ.

 

And I don't drive.

 

Sorry to hear you don't drive. You don't own a car, or just generally commute? I thought a car was a necessity in the film industry, no matter what country you call home.

 

I was joking about the MPAA, but I'd assume if you pirate a movie *from* someone in the U.S. you are under their jurisdiction. In anycase, Interpol and Scotland Yard would probably love a hand-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny in what direction this discussion progresses ,given the actual question!

 

Well since the quesiton was already answered "Most *don't* make money," I felt it alright to move onto bigger and better things.

 

Do you see taht as being a problem? I think this quesiton has been answered to the original poster's satisfaction. I know it's been asked on here a half a dozen times in my four years here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the price of a direct to video movie $150,000 to $6,000,000. That is a pretty big range. The whole direct to video market has changed many times since the 80’s. First there was no new videos to fill the empty shelves of the video stores and they would pay great money for any product as long as it was on VHS. The studios were still concentrating on theatrical and looked at the video stores as an ancillary market. With the advent of DVDs the studios changed their game plan and started filling the shelves with their films. Instead of ten “Beverly Hills Cop” you’d see thirty. The studios also started dumping their films to DVD after a minimal theatrical release. And now most recently like “Bring it One” or “Into the Blue 2” they take the visibility of the first film and dump it directly to DVD. The result is there is very little shelf space for the independent films left at all. Also, I’m certain; the studios force the DVD stores to buy lots of their direct to DVD movies and high dollar figures if they want the blockbusters.

 

So you will have one copy of the $150,000 horror film next to a wall of studio DVDs. Even if it rents all the time it just isn’t going to bring it much money. And to be honest with you 99% of these “independent” films are unwatchable. And why spend $5 to rent a film that was made for $5 when you can rent “Iron Man” for the same price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

A few of your more egregious howers:

 

The ripoff, I'd argue, was DVDs as they had Blu-ray and HD-DVD before they brought out DVD.

And you'd be arguing out of the usual orifice. The necessary blue-violet semiconductor lasers did not exist at all until well into the 21st century.

Laserdiscs were a similar rip-off to tape when it first came out (weren't some people paying hundreds of dollars on them?), but the geeks flocked to them because they were digital.

As Phil has mentioned, analog, not digital. Laserdisc was first demonstrated by Philips in 1972, digital technology would have beem impossibly expensive at that time.

Again, digital (wow :rolleyes: ) with really no better quality than Beta.

The quality of Laserdisc is roughly equivalent to first generation Betacam, which for the several millionth time, has virtually nothing in common with domestic Betamax, except for using the same formulation 1/2" tape in the same plastic case.

For what it's worth, the evolution goes :

  • "Beta" ~1973-74 - an "Educational/Industrial" cut-down version of U-Matic with a one hour playing time, which attracted zero interest.
  • "Betamax" ~ 1974 - Sony's attempt to salvage something useful from Beta when it totally bombed in the marketplace. It worked, but the quality wasn't all that good, and the 2 hour playing time (the best they could do with the tape stocks available in the early 1970s) was simply too short .
  • VHS ~ 1974 JVC's version of the concept, specifically re-engineered to overcome the very real (and eventually fatal) deficiencies of Betamax. The notion that VHS is an inferior format to Betamax is one of the most pernicious and refractory Urban Myths in recent history. Technically VHS sh!ts on Betamax in every conceivable parameter.
  • "RECAM" a broadcast quality video recording format that used VHS tapes, co-developed by RCA and JVC in the late '70s, and commercialized (not too successfully) by Panasonic in the 1980s as "M-Format". Its performance was similar to BetaCam (below), with about 20 minutes record time from a T160/E180 VHS tape.
  • "BetaCam" essentially a copy of RECAM introduced by Sony in the early 80s. (BetaCam uses a much more complicated system to achieve essentially the same results as M-Format, largely because of Patent issues. The original Betacam format can use domestic Betamax tapes, but with a drastically reduced playing time. The image quality of Betamax is nothing like the image quality of BetaCam, but its armchair champions routinely attribute BetaCam performance parameters to BetaMax.
  • MII. An upgraded version of MI that used special metal particle tapes in different physical sizes and thus could no longer use VHS tapes. It could not compete with Sony's SP Betacam format (see below), particulalry because it had no backwards compatibility with M1
  • SP BetaCam. Sony's version of MII. In a reversal of the Betamax/VHS scenario, a technically less sophisticated format prevailed because most SP machines could also record and playback standard BetaMax tapes, a very attractive feature for existing customers.

Easily damaged, some skipped right out of the box, and it saves the studios money on tape. For rentals, I definitely would've preferred them staying with VHS because renting any product subject to scratching seems idiotic.

But VHS tapes start deteriorating from day one, no matter how carefully you handle them. Plus competently recorded DVDs have much higher image quality, particularly if you use S-Video or component connections.

As far as the BBC banning film, why aren't you applauding? Or are you remaining carefully neutral again?

That widely-reported (and extensively embroidered) rumour came from a couple of non-technical non-entities in one small division of the BBC talking through their trousers. It is not true.

Edited by Keith Walters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you'd be arguing out of the usual orifice. The necessary blue-violet semiconductor lasers did not exist at all until well into the 21st century.

 

Congratulations, another fine set of nit-picks.

 

I'm trying to tell a story about a forest, and you insist upon talking about the trees. . .

 

 

As for whether they had Blu-Ray or a Blu-Ray prototype or whatever, I couldn't care less, but they DID have HD when DVDs came out, and you know damned well what I meant.

 

If you want me to say that you have a better knowledge of the trivia of tape formats though, you've got it Keith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SHould the music industry eliminate mp3s altogether and just punch to vinyl again because a large part of the market is moving back to that?

 

No, it's ultimately a money game, to make product as cheaply as possible and profit as much as possible.

 

Actually more and more of the industry is going back to vinyl, and theres some speculation that vinyl could soon outsell cd's.

 

The trouble is, that for a lot of people, that cd's weren't obviously better than vinyl but the industry forced the change to cd on the public. CD's should have been treated as a replacement for cassette and not vinyl. Having pushed everyone over to cd, they then failed to come up with a viable next generation format. Having accepted finally the change from vinyl to cd, it was suddenly easier for everyone to accept the change from cd to mp3. Mp3 was like cd's, it was obviously loads more convienient. The music industry did loads of very silly things, that even now it probably doesn't realise.

 

You talk about h.264 compression, Phil. Do you reallize that a 16mm print has roughly the same resolution?

 

?????

I thought that h.264 compression was resolution independent?

Isn't that the codec they use for ipod/iphone video?

 

I have to admit, I listen to quite a bit of illegally-obtained music. We're used to it, with radios in our cars. Just like with TV. Why pay for shows that you can own for the cost of a VHS tape?

 

But without advertising money to pay for it, we can't turn around and steal it, just because we are spoiled and accustomed to others' hard earn money paying for the art that entertains us.

 

Back to music: I only ever bought six CDs; it's a tragedy my car doesn't have a tape player because I have hundreds. I thrift them. I don't have $14 to throw down on a piece of plastic that cost 10¢ to

 

But isn't it exactly the same with DVD's that also probably cost about 10 cents to make in the same way!

 

You aren't paying for pristine condition and tight manufacturing tolerances, you're giving that up, but

 

I'm not sure what you mean there are still plenty of pressing plants with great quality control!

 

Now, in the theatre business, if you are unwilling to shell out an attrocious $10 to sit in the dark for 90 minutes, you can still see the movie for free, WHEN SOMEONE ELSE pays for it, like an advertiser or a television studio. You can't have it right away, and enjoy the same level of quality in the theatre. At least you shouldn't be able to. . .

 

. You know the saying: "You get what you pay for."

 

Actually, it is generally the people who buy the DVD's and the television stations that pay for broadcast rights that subsidise the people who go to the theatres. Theatrical releases are often mostly a promotional tool.

 

I still can't see why you say it's okay for music but not for video content?

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That widely-reported (and extensively embroidered) rumour came from a couple of non-technical non-entities in one small division of the BBC talking through their trousers. It is not true.

 

I missed this one!!

Where was this reported!?

 

It sounds like it might be a story with some definate entertainment value!

 

I can't imagine the BBC actually banning film, they use so little of it anyway it would kind of be a non issue, unless they started banning film in imported programmes! Now that could be interesting! :)

 

Anyway I'd love to hear more about this.

Funny beats true! ;)

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I'm trying to tell a story about a forest, and you insist upon talking about the trees. . .

Story? People don't come here for stories, they mostly come here for information. You know - Facts?

If your story talks about walnuts growing on an Oak tree, people are entitled to point this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I missed this one!!

Where was this reported!?

Here's one report about it, on this forum no less:

"Is 16mm obsolete?"

The entire thread isn't exactly about this subject, post #32 is the actual one you want.

There is another one somewhere where the true situation was described, but I'm not sure where that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This depends. Like any film, how well it sells will depend on many factors. Contrary to what most people believe, movies don't get theatrical runs to make money. They get theatrical runs to help sell the DVD's, which make money. In fact, most movies LOSE money in their theatrical run. It's considered a loss leader.

 

What it comes down to is: Advertising. If you can afford to run a national TV campaign, utilize youtube and other social networking sites, etc then your DVD will probably do pretty well. However, you cannot just "make a movie" and put it on a DVD and expect it to start making money. There are simply to many people doing that now days to make any money.

 

My advice: If you want to make a direct to DVD movie, Don't distribute it yourself. Submit it to a distributor who specializes in DVD premieres (York Entertainment, etc). They will have some marketing money to throw at it. However, don't expect to receive an advance on royalties unless your film has some bankable asset (star, name property, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

hey guys,

 

it's been a while since I've visited this forum and now I see that there are a bunch of replies to this topic.

 

Yes I'm still a new filmmaker with little knowledge of the industry. I am doing my research little by little and working out the details.

 

Of course I'd like to make my film a theatrical release, but I know that it's probably very hard to do so, and thus I was asking about a straight-to-dvd release as a back-up. As a student filmmaker I do have a very low budget and I want to give myself the best chance of recuperating this budget.

 

Thanks for all the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think the whole film experience has cheapened It used to mean something to have your own home cinema set up. Cinema was innovative and physical. Something to strive for. But since the flood of higher quality technology and choice its become more difficult to be a film buff.

 

Speaking personally I started collecting laser discs paying vast sums then replaced with DVDs and now Blu rays. I invested in home cinema to have it all superceded a short while later. Technology has moved at such a rapid rate no one knows where or what the best will be in a few months let alone years.

 

Cinema has become jaded with no new blood coming in and stars and the hollywood elite close ranks and get there kids in stopping talent from outside breaking in.

 

New talent can often create and begin the start of something new but then only to find no one will distribute nurture or help them.

 

Everything is watered down as access to cheap film making tools for all and everyone wants to be famous and can see its possible. Our love affair with the glamour of films has become overrun we need to step back and get some perspective and allow new talent new ideas and new styles to get investment and to take centre stage. Everything has become me me and formulaic Its not talent its about using whats worked before then using a formula to calculate the odds of making money and not someone who has an artistic uncanny knowledge on what will work.

 

Where are the new stars like we had yesteryear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to one of the earlier topics in this thread (although having nothing to do with the original question)

 

I found people who buy pirated movies were never going to buy the actual movies. But someone approached them on the subway to buy it for a buck and the transaction was made. Or they'll either borrow it or rent it from netflix and grab it, or download it. I don't think they could actually be called sales, if any very very slim because you're dealing with bottom feeders here.

 

I do think piracy hurts movies in the following regard though...when it gets leaked out before it's released or during and publicity jumps all over that. Then when it hits the public's ears that a copy is already downloadable, it cheapens the movie and everybody's work, and people may not rush to go out and see it. It lost it's value. So in this regard, piracy does hurt alot and it's sad to anyone who'e a part of the movie industry.

 

There's many more variations than this.

 

What surprises me and doesn't surprise me is that producers don't go after these people. Maybe they're making so much money already it would only be a headache. As far as the little guy, they might have to look at the piracy as free advertising. Or advertising they're paying for with sales they would have never had.

 

Now a days, you don't have to go to the guy in New York who has all the dvd's spread out right there on the sidewalk, you can just mosey on down to youtube and watch a whole movie free because some avid fan wants to share that movie with the world.

 

So if you made a movie and it was snatched up to be sold in the underworld of piracy, you could A) at least know your work was worth stealing and people who maybe were not part of the piracy (kids, friends) are enjoying your work.

 

or you could B ) If you don't care if anyone is enjoying your work (released on dvd) and your so focused on pirates stealing your stuff and you blame them still because you weren't able to recoup all or even partial of your money...then know if piracy didn't exist, there's probably a good chance you still wouldn't have recouped your money anyway.

 

C) I'll let you fill in the blank if need be.

Edited by Rick Lombana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the piracy aspect, it probably depends on how the overall economy is doing. People who like a movie, and have a pirated copy, might want to buy the DVD in the future if they watch it enough. But they aren't going to spend that money until the economy recovers and they have extra income to spend. Right now, I would expect most people will pirate. Three years from now, when the economy has recovered a bit, I'd expect to see a sudden jump in DVD sales. In general, even with economic recovery, I'd expect third-world sales to drop (for outsiders) because they'll be growing their own filmmakers soon enough. It just depends on how soon the equipment falls within their price range.

 

Regarding profits on DVD's, it's an interesting question to ask how much it will typically earn. It's a question I asked a while ago, before I realized that the answer wasn't really important. You probably asked the question because you want to hear someone reply "six-figure income is typical", or something along those lines, so that you can justify the time and expense you're about to put into making a movie. Maybe you want to try to balance some sort of cost estimate with probable returns. But, the reality is that you have to spend what you have to spend. Just keep it as cheap as possible and that's all you can do. From what I've heard, even a thousand dollars profit could be a stroke of luck for an unknown. It all depends on the movie, the effort and effectiveness in selling it, luck, and of course "who you know".

 

If it helps, try to justify the effort by telling yourself "It won't make any money at all, but..."

a)it'll be a fun project.

b)it's good for conversation if anyone asks me what I've been up to.

c)it'll help my resume.

d)maybe someone in my movie will get famous, thereby improving my own position in the industry.

e)it's better than sitting at home all day.

f)<any other reasons you can think of>

 

There's the distinct possibility that we're shifting from movies as a profit source, to movies as an art source. Meaning, the act of creating the movie will be what brings you pleasure, rather than gaining pleasure from the concept of the financial earnings. There are already so many movies in existence, it's only getting harder to punch through the noise, especially without millionaire money behind the advertising. If you can't handle losing money from your movie (really losing money, not just tax tricks), then don't make a movie at all. If you can deal with the financial loss, because you *really* want to make the movie, then go for it. Just be sure to have a regular job to pay the bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...