fandependent - Tumblr blog

fandependent · 13 years

Text

a blueprint for the next indie generation

We are on the brink of what may turn out to be the most exciting era in the history of independent film. A history that has slowly evolved from the power going from the studios to the artists.

This evolution has gone as follows:

Studio Produced Films and Studio Distribution - (The Golden Age of Hollywood)

Studio Produced Films (with artists in control) and Studio Distribution - (The New Hollywood)

Independently Produced Films with Studio Distribution - (Independent Film Era)

Independently Produced Films and Independent (self) Distribution - (Today)

Now since Independent (self) Distribution doesn't enable filmmakers to effectively recoup their budgets and sustain themselves as filmmakers, this era has been met with lots of criticism, skepticism and debate. But what we have to realize is that we are still evolving our techniques. We are currently in a transitive state. A transition that will take us to the next exciting step in the history of film independence.

Independently Produced Films and Independent (group) Distribution.

In the last post I also outlined what Independent (group) Distribution is and why it is a path that could offer more control over your future (and possibly more money) than Studio Distribution. I also talked about why it would give you more leverage and enable you to make more fans and money than Independent (self) Distribution. On top of all of that, I think it would simply be a more exciting enriching experience to do all this with a group of your peers as opposed to doing it all alone.

You can read more on why I feel this path is more exciting and beneficial than any other option in the history of film here. But here's a quick recap of what a Film Collective (Independent (group) Distribution) is.

Independent (group) Distribution is when a team of independent filmmakers unite under one Film Collective, in order to effectively distribute their collective works. A Film Collective is nothing more than a trademarked name and logo that the Film Collective’s members share. No one is the owner of the Film Collective and the Film Collective does not own any of the films, the filmmakers do. Each filmmaker is only responsible for their films, and are not involved creatively or financially with any other filmmaker’s work. Each Film Collective's member must have their own production company from which each individual filmmaker’s films are produced through, and which any and all money earned through the Film Collective is paid to. Each Film Collective member’s films should share similar characteristics to help distinguish their films from other distribution companies, and all films (and film related merchandise) should be available for viewing and purchasing on the Film Collective’s website (although not exclusively).

For film fans it would provide a place where they could easily find, connect with and support the types of films they personally like. It would take out the struggle for having to search through an ocean of content and provide a one stop shop to view, support and connect with the filmmakers and films they truly enjoy.

So how does one start a film collective? What does one have to do to get from here to there? Before I go into detail on what it will take to form a successful Film Collective, we first have to define what "success" is?

In this brand new era of filmmaking, we can no longer compare ourselves to the filmmakers of the past because their models for success were greatly different than the bars of success for today's indie filmmakers. We have to embrace the fact that the internet can now connect us to an audience like never before in history. The internet allows us to have our films seen by millions of people overnight, all over the globe, with the push of a button. So why are we still trying to emulate the successful paths a select group of filmmakers marched down while the internet was still in it's primitive stages?

If we look at the photos above the one thing they all have in common is that the filmmakers are all very young looking and new to the film business. As each new generation of filmmakers came along, they rattled the cages of the way things used to be done and created a bold new path for themselves. Now it's our turn. We are the next indie generation and we have to move on from these nostalgic bars of success from the past and create a bold new path for success, a path unlike anything seen before in film history. A path that is distinctly our own.

Here are the old and new bars of success

The Old Bars of Success were:

1) Validating yourself as an Independent Filmmaker by getting into a good film festival (Sundance, Cannes, Toronto etc.)

2) Getting a distribution deal.

3) Getting your films into theaters resulting in exposure, “credible” reviews and a growing fan base.

4) Being able to continue making films and earn a living through studios who finance and believe in your work. These are the NEW Bars of Success

1) Validating yourself as an Independent Filmmaker by getting tens of thousands of views on the internet.

2) Earn fans, reviews, credibility, exposure and money by engaging and interacting with fans, selling your own merchandise and getting your film seen and spread with the help of your fans.

3) Leveraging the demand for your films so you can negotiate fair deals with online platforms (amazon, hulu, netflix etc.), and so you can negotiate with movie theaters, to have your film screened, resulting in “credible” reviews, more exposure, money and more new fans.

4) Being able to continue making films and earn a living through fans who finance and believe in your work.

So let's start breaking it down. What do these old and new models have in common? At the core the new and old bars of success are exactly the same.

1) Validation

2) Earning Money.

3) Theatrical Screenings and Credible Reviews.

4) Sustainability.

Deep down it is really only these four things that we are looking for. I think most of us don't really care how we attain these bars of success, we just want to be able to make enough money to sustain and continue making films. Right? We have been looking backwards so longingly because the indie filmmaker success stories of the 90's were able to attain all of these bars of success but we have yet to see models and filmmakers that have been able to pull off this list today.

In this post we're going to break down each bar of success and then talk about how forming a Film Collective can enable us to effectively achieve each bar in a radical new way which will allow us to sustain with a level of creative freedom never before possible.

Now I must point out that these bars of success can only be accomplished sequentially. You can't get to bar three without accomplishing bar one. Many unknown filmmakers are making their first film and hoping it will sustain them as an artist. We can all get to that point but we have to realize that in both the old and new bars of success there are steps that must be accomplished in order to get there. But don't worry, I think you'll see that forming a Film Collective will make the path towards sustainability easier and more rewarding than ever before.

THE FIRST BAR OF SUCCESS - Validation

Validating yourself as an Independent Filmmaker by getting tens of thousands of views on the internet.

In the 90's, it was the festival seals that use to be the only way to get validation as independent filmmakers. An official mark that not only validated your work, but also you as an artist.

So what is the internet age equivalent to the Sundance festival seal? Today validation can be attained by far more people than ever before, from far more independent voices around the globe. Validation today exists simply with your view count.

Now I'm not comparing your view count with getting a distribution deal at Sundance, I'm JUST talking about getting into the festival and having that festival seal attached to your film. How many views is that worth? Would you prefer to have your film get into Sundance and get that festival seal as validation (without a distribution deal), or would you prefer to have 10,000 people see your film online in a week? If 10,000 views doesn't do it for you how about 50,000 or 100,000? Think about how many views you feel a Sundance seal is worth to you. If it's over a million I suggest you look back at some past Sundance Film Festival lineups and look up some films that never got distribution. How many of those films have you ever heard of? How many people do you think actually saw those films?

The Internet Stigma.

Now if the new validation is getting tens of thousands of views on the internet why is it that so many filmmakers refuse to post their feature films online? It baffling to me why an unknown filmmaker wouldn't put their feature film online for free? In both the new and old bars of success, validation must come before you can make money. Charging people to see your film before you have been validated as a filmmaker is the equivalent of charging people for your unknown band's CD without allowing them to hear what your music is like. We have to get over the idea of our films having value, no matter how much it cost you to make it. Because to be honest, if you're an unknown filmmaker, your film has zero value. In a time where we can watch any film in the entire history of cinema online, give me one good reason why I should pay $2.99 to watch an unknown filmmaker's film over a free Akira Kurasawa film I've never seen before.

An unknown filmmaker's film has zero value. The only way to add value to your work is to be validated as a filmmaker. The only way to be validated as a filmmaker is to have your film seen. So for an unknown filmmaker to charge $2.99 to see their unknown film is the equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot.

But putting your film online for free doesn't mean you won't get any money, in fact it has helped some filmmakers make more than any distribution deal offered to them. Filmmaker Nina Paley put her film, Sita Sings the Blues, online for free and to date it has made over $50,000 through donations and DVD sales. On her youtube page alone, the film has been seen over 400,000 times and on top of all of that, she now has a NAME and a fan base. Her film was THEN accepted into countless film festivals, she got a review from Roger Ebert and the next time she puts out a film she will have thousands of people eagerly awaiting, and most likely willing to pay a buck or two, (if they know the money is going to the filmmaker) to check out her latest film.

Now tell me which move makes more sense: charging $2.99 for your first film as an unknown filmmaker and get a small fraction of the views, fans and cash because nobody knows who you are and have no real good reason to pay for your film, or, put your film online for free, and if it finds it's audience, validate you as a filmmaker overnight as well as connect you with loyal fans wanting to check out and support all of your future work?

Now I know $50,000 doesn't sound nearly as sweet as a million dollar buy out from a distributor but bear with me. This should be the last film you have to post online for free, and if you have an effective Film Collective. your next film, and all subsequent films should be able to make much more than any distribution deal.

Short films are no longer our calling cards. In today's ocean of content, I feel it's the first feature that is the new calling card. So get your film out into the world. Allow people to find it and spread the word. Your film isn't for everyone so the quicker you get it up and available to the masses the quicker it will take for your fans to find out about you and your Film Collective.

Now while getting your film viewed tens of thousands of times is something you can do on your own website (through Independent (self) Distribution), I want to point out that as we have seen, Independent (self) Distribution works for the first one or two bars of success but has lots of trouble with the third and fourth bar. By forming a Film Collective we can accomplish each bar of success but again we must start from the bottom and work our way to the top.

So how do we start a Film Collective?

In short, all we have to do is:

a) Join forces with 3-5 other like minded filmmakers.

b) Create a logo.

c) Build a website.

Technically, these steps are not that difficult to execute, but there are some things that have to be carefully considered before jumping ahead.

a) Join forces with 3-5 other like minded filmmakers.

Forming a Film Collective should be like forming a band. Technically all you need is a drummer, guitar player, bass player and a singer. There are plenty of them out there but you should choose a group that fits together well. A collective of artists who share similar sensibilities and can compliment each other well. This formation shouldn't be rushed or taken lightly, and if done incorrectly, could cripple any potential your Film Collective might have before it even starts. Some egos may get bruised in this process but we have to realize we can't form Film Collectives with people just because we know them, or because they already have a lot of fans. We also have to realize that an overabundance of filmmakers on one collective will negatively affect it, as well as a lineup of films that have vastly different audiences. So who do we team up with?

There is nothing in this post that needs to be taken more seriously than this info I'm about to say. This is the one bit of advice that MUST be followed in order to form a Film Collective that works. It is something that isn't technically difficult in any way. The toughest part about it is being honest with ourselves and our filmmaker friends. The true test to see if you should be in the same Film Collective is...

You really like their films (be honest) and they really like your films (seriously, they love it).

If you, and all the other filmmakers involved in the Film Collective, truly like each other's work, then everyone involved will see the benefits almost immediately. Why?

Because our films are a reflection of all that we believe, wonder, question, find funny, maddening and inspiring. If you really like a person's films, I imagine you'd also probably like the person who made it. And by bringing together like minded filmmakers, you'll also be bringing together all of your like minded fans.

This is truly the most difficult part in all of this. After this, the rest is merely technical. Nothing too difficult lies ahead and if you are able to join forces with filmmakers that inspire you, while at the same time create a home for fans who like all of your collective work, then and only then, will you be on the fast track towards sustainability.

b) Create a logo.

After you've teamed up with 3-5 filmmakers you really like, the next step is creating a logo for your Film Collective. This is a logo that should be put at the beginning of all your films and trailers. A logo that should be on all your DVDs and posters. A logo that should be the domain name for your website.

The goal here is to have a logo that works as effectively as Pixar's logo. A logo that can excite hardcore fans as soon as they see it at the beginning of a trailer. Why does Pixar's logo work better than Paramount's logo? As soon as we see that little lamp we have a good idea for what kind of film we are about to see. If you like Pixar movies, chances are, you'll check out the newest one. If you don't like Pixar movies, you probably won't. With Paramount it's less clear what the film will be like and tough for an audience to gauge if they'll like the film or not. This is also why if you start forming a collective with every filmmaker you know on facebook, then it will be impossible to establish a feel for your logo because audiences will have no idea what kind of films the Film Collective puts out. If they find some films amazing, some terrible and some okay then there is no reason for a fan to follow what your Film Collective puts out. They'll have just as good of a chance of finding a film they like by searching for trailers on youtube or browsing for films on Amazon.

c) Build a website

Again, nothing too difficult. Most of us (if not all of us) have websites for our films and we all know how challenging it is to keep the content fresh so people can continue to come back. By forming website for your Film Collective you will start to see the benefits over Independent (self) Distribution almost immediately.

First, you need to create a blog which every filmmaker in the collective can access and post videos, photos and any other info they want to share. This should become everyone's main blog to post from about your films. You don't want fans flipping back and fourth from your production company to your Film Collective to find the latest news on your project. Commit to the Film Collective and have that be the first place fans can go to find out new info on your film. This will not only draw everyone's collective fans to one place but it will also give them a reason to check back with the Film Collective's website more frequently, simply because 5 people will post more stuff than one person.

Second, you need to post all of your feature films on your Film Collective's website exclusively, and for free. Don't put your film on amazon, don't put it on apple tv, don't put it on youtube don't even put it on your production companies website. POST YOUR FEATURE FILMS EXCLUSIVELY ON YOUR FILM COLLECTIVE'S WEBSITE FOR FREE. You can have your shorts and trailers on youtube and vimeo etc. but always refer people who see that content to your Film Collective's website in order to see the full feature. Why? I'll get into that more later.

So now you have teamed up with 3-5 like minded filmmakers, you've created a logo which plays at the beginning of all your trailers and you have created a website where people can check out all of your films exclusively and for free. Now what? Do you have a following? Do your films have tens of thousands of views? Did the last film you posted on your site get tens of thousands of views overnight? If you have a loyal following that is eagerly viewing your latest films as soon as you post them, you are ready for the second bar of success.

If you haven't found your audience and aren't pulling in the views in the tens of thousands then recruit another 3-5 like minded filmmakers and do the exact same thing. Incorporate them into your blog, post their films exclusively on your website for free and continue doing so until you are able to hit these kinds of numbers.

For some Film Collectives it may take 3 filmmakers, for others it might take 15. Either way, follow these steps until you can gain a loyal fan base and then move on to...

THE SECOND BAR OF SUCCESS - Earning Money

Earn fans, reviews, credibility, exposure and money by engaging and interacting with fans, selling your own merchandise and getting your film seen and spread with the help of your fans.

If your Film Collective's latest free film is pulling in tens of thousands of views overnight, and all of your older films are now getting close to views in the 100,000 range, you are now able to start charging people for your work. Why?

Because what you have done is successfully created a home where a growing number of like minded film fans can easily find and connect with filmmakers whose work they are choosing to watch over all the other films in cinema's history. You have not only validated yourself as a filmmaker, but you have validated your Film Collective as a whole. This is no small feat and you should be appreciative of these fans. You must also let them know that in order for the Film Collective to continue producing films you must make more money to sustain. So once you have an loyal audience I'd start to charge $1 to stream all your Film Collective's future films.

I don't think any fan would have a problem paying $1 to a filmmaker they like, especially if they know that dollar is going directly to the artist. You can also charge more for downloads or selling DVDs for those who are not afraid to pay a little extra for a better quality version, but make your film as accessible as possible to your fans because in my opinion, the more people that see it, the greater your chances for expanding your future audience.

To maximize the buzz of the newest filmmaker's films, I would make the day of their film festival premier the same day the film is available exclusively on your Film Collective's website. That way you can more effectively capitalize off of a festival's buzz and draw in a lot of potential new future fans to all of the filmmakers work in the Film Collective. Eventually you should have filmmakers applying to be a part of your Film Collective because once you are running, new filmmakers will quickly understand that being accepted into a established Film Collective will become much more valuable than being accepted into any film festival.

This now begs the question, how many filmmakers do we recruit for our Film Collective? Do we ever stop recruiting? The answer is yes but the exact number of filmmakers will vary depending on the Film Collective.

Check out the new super indie section called "the garage" on mubi here. There are over 2,400 films/shorts/music videos there. It is an overwhelming amount of unknown films made by unknown filmmakers. An amount so large that it makes it almost impossible to navigate through. Think of your Film Collective sort of like a restaurant menu. If a menu has 50 pages of items, it makes the decision overwhelming and is actually quite mind numbing. The overabundance of choice can sometimes turn someone off completely and make them feel lost. On the other hand, a menu with 15 items is quite manageable, aesthetically attractive and makes the ordering experience quite painless. It also is following a growing number of popular websites that have a "clean" aesthetic. I feel that the Factory 25 website is wonderful. It has a number of films that isn't too much or too few. It is a body of work yet it isn't an intimidating ocean of content that has films from every range of the spectrum. It is a manageable amount of films that give the impression that if I really liked these films I could actually watch them all. An exciting thought that isn't even possible when you look at the lineup of films in mubi's "garage".

So to answer the question, "how many filmmakers should there be in a Film Collective?" I'd say, have as few filmmakers as possible that can, as a group, comfortably put out about 4-8 feature films a year. This group of filmmakers should be small enough to remain personal, yet large enough to gain important leverage necessary for the third bar of success.

The key isn't to make as many films as possible. The key is to create a team of filmmakers that fans can feel connected to. A team of filmmakers that consistently put out a handful of films every year that fans can get excited about and support. If your collective is putting out 40 films every year, it would be information overload. Not only would it be hard to feel a connection with each filmmaker but it would simply be hard to watch and support every film the Collective puts out. If your Film Collective only puts out a film a year, then you won't be able to move on to the next bar of success simply because in order to gain leverage necessary to get into theaters and negotiate fair deals, you need to put out films more consistently.

So I'd imagine, in order to put out 4-8 films comfortably, every year, you'd need to recruit anywhere from 12 to 25 filmmakers. Any more then that and I'd imagine it would be detrimental because it would be difficult for fans to feel connected to such a large number of filmmakers. So the speed at which each filmmaker can put out content is something that should also be considered. It also reinforces the importance of having a group of filmmakers that you are all inspired by. A lone filmmaker that doesn't fit well with the rest of the group, and perhaps puts out a mediocre product every year, can quickly water down the Film Collective's body of work as a whole and deter many potential future fans. On the other hand if you have 20 amazing filmmakers that all take 10 years to put out films, then you may find yourself at a disadvantage simply because you'll need a lot more filmmakers to fill the 4-8 film a year quota which is crucial in order to attain the third bar of success, yet harmful for the Film Collective because you'd need so many filmmakers and it would be hard for the fans to feel connected to them all.

Okay, so once you are able to charge for content and are in the process of recruiting (or have finished recruiting) enough filmmakers to put out about 4-8 films a year, now you are ready for the third bar of success. But first I just want to talk a bit about other potential advantages to forming a team of like minded filmmakers and how forming a Film Collective can greatly reduce the work load we experienced when we were self distributing our films.

Teamwork

When we were doing Independent (self) Distribution we were responsible for keeping up our blogs, facebook pages, twitter feeds, e-mail newsletters, designing and manufacturing DVDs, posters, shirts etc. But now with 12-25 filmmakers in your Film Collective, you can divide your tasks and responsibilities for distribution into far more manageable bits.

Instead of doing everything, what if you were solely responsible for only one of these roles: twitter feed manager, facebook page manger, e-mail newsletter writer, new recruit screener, new recruit contact, website updater, dvd manufacturer, merchandise shipper, poster/tee-shirt silk-screener, film fest submitter, indie publicist, theatrical contact, theatrical organizer etc. By splitting up all these responsibilities not only can a Film Collective become a well oiled machine but it would also allow every filmmaker to have more time to focus on their films and more time to have a life outside of the film world.

Now before we start assigning duties, we should first see what each individual filmmakers strengths are and discuss which aspects of distribution each filmmaker actually enjoys and would like to do.

In short: What aspects of distribution don't feel like "work" to you?

I personally don't enjoy, and am not good at, keeping up with social media sites like facebook and twitter. Some filmmakers are phenomenal at it and enjoy it. I'm not one of those people. What I do enjoy (and would enjoy doing more of) is creating physical products: silk screening posters and tee shirts, putting together and binding hand crafted books or magazines, manufacturing DVDs and cover art etc. So now instead of making each filmmaker do everything, take advantage of the Film Collective as a whole. Share the workload and take advantage of everyone's personal strengths and interests. That way, everyone involved will not only pull their weight, but specialize in an area that is enjoyable to them personally, which will create a superior final product in every aspect of distribution. And with a film collective around 20 people, you could even divide those responsibilities in half, or perhaps rotate. The key here is to make the distribution process as less of a chore a humanly possible and I honestly feel that with so many like minded people working together, you could not only make distribution bearable, you might even be able to make it fun.

Another exciting advantage is the idea of equipment sharing. Why should all 18 filmmakers each buy a camera if they're only going to shoot a film once every other year? What if one person bought the body of the camera while another person invested in lenses and another person invested in lights? By splitting up the expenses and sharing gear with each other we could also have more tools at our disposal while spending the same amount of money as we would if we were doing everything ourselves.

What's next?

Okay, so now you have built up a solid group of like minded filmmakers. With each new film that comes out, filmmakers are getting tens of thousands of views a day and are getting $1 a view directly. The shared workload allows the Film Collective to keep moving forward as some filmmakers release their latest films, others work on their next films and also allow enough room for everyone between projects to have a life outside of film to start families, go to college, build a house etc. without grinding the Film Collective to a halt. You are a validated Film Collective that has a loyal fan base and can pull in enough money to pay off your budgets and possibly turn a profit on each film. You are a collective that still plays all of your film EXCLUSIVELY on your Film Collective's website and now it is time to apply some of your hard earned leverage.

THE THIRD BAR OF SUCCESS - Theatrical Screenings and Credible Reviews

Leveraging the demand for your films so you can negotiate fair deals with online platforms (amazon, hulu, netflix etc.), and so you can negotiate with movie theaters, to have your film screened, resulting in “credible” reviews, more exposure, money and more new fans.

Once you have an effective Film Collective able to produce 4-8 films each year, that tens of thousands of fans are willing to pay $1 a view for, now you are able to apply some of your leverage to negotiate with theaters and online platforms which will help everyone gain more fans, exposure, credibility and cash.

As I said in the last post, it's extremely difficult trying to get our single film into theaters but what do you think would happen if you went to a theater and said, “Hi, I’m a filmmaker who works for an artist owned Distribution Company. We are a collective of award winning independent filmmakers with thousands of devout fans, and our films have been viewed over 700,000 times online. If you would like to do business with us we can guarantee 4 to 8 films a year for theatrical screenings. We do our own promotions and in the past, our numbers show that 70% of our screenings get sold out while another 10% usually sells close to 80% capacity.” I think you will find that there would be a much larger amount of theaters willing to screen your films if they were offered that proposal.

Another plus to having the Film Collective is that if you are all spread out across the United States, you can individually approach theaters in your area and together create a theatrical run across the states. You could essentially have someone putting up posters, selling DVDs and curating your film in up to 25 different cities without ever leaving your apartment. What if each Film Collective member premiered each film in their own cities and sold not only merchandise to the newest films but all the films in the Film Collective. Essentially your film could premier in 25 different cities while you only do 1/25th of the work.

Now the reason I said to play all of your films on your Film Collective's website exclusively is because in order to negotiate and strike a fair deal with outlets such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc. You need to first prove that your content is worth something. Once you have proven that, then and only then will filmmakers get paid what they deserve. As I detailed in the last post there is a LOT of money that can be made from these companies if you have content that is in demand. Also by keeping everything on your site, you could essentially even ask for more money and offer one of the companies and exclusive partnership. How much money? If you didn't read my last post I suggest you check it out here. These numbers are startling and as more and more people start watching films through Comcast, Netflix etc. these numbers will only continue to go up. (Currently Nich indie films are pulling in almost $800,000 a month for Comcast alone.)

So hopefully after all of this you can clearly see that by joining forces with like minded filmmakers, you will be able to open doors that were not available to you if you Independently self Distribute your films. By joining forces you can more quickly validate yourself as a filmmaker by pooling together the combined fans of every like minded filmmaker in the collective. Once you've validated yourselves as filmmakers and the Film Collective as a whole you can start charging for your content, while letting the fans know that this money is critical in order for the Film Collective to continue making films. Once you have proven that your films can make money, you can then use your leverage to get your films seen in theaters and strike deals with larger companies to get fair percentages off your work and possibly even have them bid against each other. If you are doing all of this you will now make it to the fourth and final bar of success, sustainability.

THE FOURTH BAR OF SUCCESS - Sustainability

Being able to continue making films and earn a living through fans who finance and believe in your work.

I said much of this in my last post so I apologize for repeating myself but with this new found freedom also comes new responsibility. If I were you I would put at least half of the money you make into your production company and divide the rest up with your cast and crew. The money in your production company is essentially your budget for your next film. The money that goes to you is essentially the money you have to live off of. Hopefully that money will be enough so you can work on your art full time and then when the time is right, you’ll have $500,000 ready to go to make your next film truly independently.

Do you have to follow this model? No, I can’t tell anyone what to do but if you want to get into a cycle where you are able to continuously create an uncompromised body of work, this is what you’re going to have to do. You have to invest in yourself and in your films. Now I can already hear the critics squawking about no one wanting to put their own money into their films. If you are in a Film Collective I wouldn’t think of it exactly as “your” money. I would think of it as money your fans gave you in order for you to continue making uncompromised work. As this last step of the evolution of Independence unfolds, you can no longer think of yourself as just a filmmaker and your fans just as fans; you have to think of yourself as your own micro-studio and your fans as your financiers. You have to consider your next project and make sure you have enough to continue making films. If you squander that opportunity you will then have to go through more traditional paths in order to make films, paths that don’t offer you the opportunity to create a body of uncompromised work.

If this sounds silly or ridiculous to you then I guess I’d question your motivations to become a filmmaker in the first place. To me personally, all I want is to live a comfortable life and make the films I want to make. It’s as easy as that. Forming a Film Collective could enable that to happen. If you’re strictly in this film business to make money, that is fine but this is obviously not the path for you. This is an option where the idea that is trying to be expressed is more valuable than the money it makes. An option where your future ideas are worth investing in with your fans hard earned dollars, because you know without them your ideas would never be able to see the light of day.

We are a species whose creativity sets us apart from all others on this planet. Creativity has always been the precursor to innovation and change. It was the Wright Brothers passion and creativity that enabled man to fly, not the idea of how much profit could be made as a result of it. Creativity is vital for us in order to evolve as a species and by doing something as simple as forming a group with other like minded filmmakers you could have an opportunity to use every creative bone in your body and try to express yourself more freely than ever before. In addition to all of that, you’d also be taking part in a beautiful trend that is happening across the U.S. A trend in which people are choosing to go to farmers markets instead of chain stores, buying a CD off of a musician on kickstarter as opposed to illegally downloading it for free, it is a trend in which people are consciously going out of their way to give their money to the people who help their community, not the corporations that profit off of it.

So get out there and start approaching the filmmakers you truly respect and are inspired by and start making the first exciting steps for the Next Indie Generation.

Thank you all for your time,

An exciting future awaits.

Ben Hicks has lived in California, Florida, Chicago, Tokyo and now lives by the ocean in Taiwan. For cash he’s taught English, sold knives, washed cars, moved furniture, plunged strippers toilets and countless other jobs. His hobby is making films. To date, Ben has written and directed two award winning short films and helped co-found Elephant Dreams Pictures and Fandependent. Currently Ben is in the middle of making his first feature film, Kids Go Free to Fun Fun Time.

11 notes · View notes

fandependent · 13 years

Text

The Evolution of Film Independence

First, I want to start out by saying that this post has nothing to do with Fandependent. We have been working hard over the past year to transform Fandependent into something bulletproof and soon we will be talking a lot more about where we are now.

But this isn't about Fandependent. This post is bigger than Fandependent. This post has to do with the evolution of film independence, both where we've come and where we're going. If we look at history we can see that we have made some very clear and important steps towards true independence. With each step there was great change and great films as a result.

I felt compelled to write this post after I saw all the excitement over the recent Studio purchases at Sundance and hearing phrases like "independent film is back!". Yes, studios are again paying over $1,000,000 for independent films but lets pause for a second and look back at a little film history before we abandon all the hard work we've done these last few years and run back to 1994.

After this post you'll be able to see that independent filmmakers are about to hit a fork in the road. A road that will divide independent filmmakers into two different groups: those who took the path back to studio distribution, and those who boldly took a step forward, to write a new (and possibly final) chapter in the evolution in film independence.

So grab a comfy chair, this one is a doozy (17 pages long) but I assure you at the end of this, you will look at our future in a whole new light.

First, some selected history in the evolution of film independence in the U.S.

STUDIO PRODUCED FILMS and STUDIO DISTRIBUTION

aka - The Golden Age of Hollywood

The late 1920's to early 1950's was known as The Golden Age of Hollywood, and during this time there were 5 major movie studios. These 5 major movie studios (Twentieth Century Fox, RKO Pictures, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) not only owned the lots and studios to produced their own films but they also owned all of the equipment, they owned the theaters to screen their films (MGM made Gone With the Wind and owned the Loews Theaters, as seen above) and they even owned the talent to some degree as every star was contracted by one of the major studios and could then only appear in that particular studios films. During the Golden Age of Hollywood people could tell if the film was a Warner Bros. film or a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer film simply by which star was in the picture. The studios used this contracted talent as a way of effectively distinguishing itself from the other studios and took great pride in the talent that signed on with them. (As you can see here in this 1948 MGM actors studio photo.)

There were other smaller studios at the time but since most of them didn't own any movie theaters, it was much harder on them to guarantee sales on their films. In fact it was so difficult to compete with the 5 major studios that the federal government won a case against Paramount in the Supreme Court, which ruled that the vertically integrated structure of the movie industry constituted an illegal oligopoly. This along with the creation of a new technology called television, would help bring an end to The Golden Age of Hollywood.

An interesting thing to note is that even though these 5 studios literally had a monopoly on the motion picture industry, these studios still produced arguably many of cinemas finest works to date. Films like: Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone With the Wind etc. How was it that under such a highly regimented studio system, that so many notable works of art came to be produced? The answer lies in the amount of control these studios had. These studios had so much power, content and control that they could afford to take risks on small to medium budget films and they could afford to let new artists take risks on the types of stories they wanted to tell.

Now I just want to point out that it would be impossible to make an "independent" film by today's standards in the Golden Age simply because the tools to create a film were large and expensive. The cameras were enormous (as you can see in this early Technicolor camera), film stock was also in it's early stages and in order to get exposure you needed lots of large lights that needed lots of power just to get a decent exposure.

The other problem would be distribution. How could one distribute their film if the studios owned all the theaters? I guess technically the only way you could do it would be to negotiate with the studios and strike a deal with them (most likely in their favor) in order for your film to ever reach an audience. (Sound familiar anyone?)

In short: The Golden Age Studio Films was a successful model because they produced and distributed their own films (through an oligopoly). They produced films that took risks and had contracted artists which gave each studio its own style and characteristic touches that made it possible for people to easily distinguish which studio created each film.

STUDIO PRODUCED FILMS (with artists in the driver's seats) and STUDIO DISTRIBUTION

aka - The New Hollywood

The Paramount case and the creation of television had severely weakened the large studios. In addition to that, the content that the studios were creating in the 1960's was starting to feel "old". The baby boomers started moving away from the typical musicals numbers and historical epics and started identifying with foreign films that dealt more with real life. Films that were unafraid to try and express new ideas, films unafraid to show nudity, films that experimented with the art form itself and took risks. With the studios finding it difficult to compete they decided to give up some of their control and put their faith and money into a new generation of producers, actors and directors.

On a side note, the tools available to filmmakers at this time had also changed. Since the size of the cameras where now smaller, it opened up the doors for new methods of film expression through the use of camera movement. Film stock had also greatly improved and enabled filmmakers the mobility and ability to shoot in real locations since they no longer were dependent on massive studio lights.

This new generation or New Hollywood also created arguably some of cinema's finest work to date: personal, counter culture, entertaining and artistic films like Easy Rider, Harold and Maude, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Bonnie & Clyde, Chinatown, The Graduate, The Godfather etc. And although the directors did not have complete control over their films, they did have an amount of control that was unprecedented at that time.

In short: The New Hollywood studio films was a successful model partly because the studios took risks by producing content which gave a lot of creative control to the artists and by the studio's efforts to distribute these films out to independent theaters around the country.

But The New Hollywood Era would not last forever. Films like Star Wars and Jaws gave studios a glimpse of the potential a film could make if you targeted your films to a new, larger and younger audience. This new target audience not only had an abundance of free time but they bought merchandise too! The profit potential from this age group was so large that the studios created a new rating for it (PG-13) and have continued to create most of their content for this age group ever since. The 1980's and 90's also ushered in a new, highly profitable technology: VHS and more notably, DVDs. Home video technology enabled people to watch films any time they wanted in the comfort of their own home. Distribution companies were no longer only responsible for getting films into theaters, they were now also responsible for getting films into video stores, supermarkets and DVD players across the globe.

INDEPENDENTLY PRODUCED FILMS with STUDIO DISTRIBUTION

aka - The Independent Film Era

After a long period of large studio films, a breath of fresh air came around the 1990's and roared throughout the early 2000's. Suddenly there was another explosion of some of arguably, cinema's finest work to date: Do the Right Thing, Pulp Fiction, Kids, Boogie Nights, Amores Perros, Memento, Chunking Express etc. There was an enormous amount of support around incredibly small films like Clerks, El Mariachi, The Blair Witch Project, Swingers and Pump Up the Volume. It wasn't only because these films were good but partly because these films were being created independent of any movie studio. There was a sweeping realization that if you had guts, drive, passion and something to say, you could make a film on your own and have your voice heard.

Filmmakers were now creating compelling films independently from any studio and because of that, there was a boom of independent studio distribution companies. These studios paid the filmmakers for their hard work in producing the content and then turned a profit by distributing the filmmakers films into theaters, getting their DVD's into video and retail stores and even getting their films on cable TV. It was also a time of great contrast. The independent film studios were acquiring, producing and distributing very personal films that took risks while the large studio films were focusing on the potential that CG could play in cinema. Many people could guess which studio put out a certain film much like during the Golden Age of Hollywood. This time it wasn't stars that gave it away but in many cases the complete lack of stars.

In short: Independent studios and filmmakers were successful because the studios took risks in buying content that the filmmaker produced, and the filmmakers were able to take risks because they had complete creative control of their films because they produced them independently. There was now a new partnership between those who produced the films (the filmmakers) and those who distributed the films (the studios) and it was a very successful relationship, in part because the Independent Studios, like in the Golden Age, had their own style and characteristic touches that made it possible for people to easily distinguish which studio put out each film.

But the independent film era wouldn't last forever. Technology has not only made it possible to shoot and edit a film at an affordable price. It has now gotten to the point where consumer digital video cameras can rival 35mm film. The internet has also made it possible for anyone to upload their films with the push of a button and make their film accessible to a global audience that was never before possible. Wait, aren't those good things?

INDEPENDENTLY PRODUCED FILMS and INDEPENDENT (SELF) DISTRIBUTION

aka - today

Although technology has now made professional cameras and editing equipment accessible to the masses, and the internet allows anyone to have their film seen by potentially millions of people, now a new set of problems have popped up. The problem is that the market is now saturated with independent films and the internet has made it possible to find any film ever created, and watch it for free online. The entire movie industry suffered from this but the independent studios suffered more. With films that were already for niche audiences, it became hard to effectively distribute these films when they were competing with a sea of other niche films (which could be found for free online), while also competing with CG blockbusters that continue to pound away at the box office week after week. Independent Studios had a very difficult time distributing independent films and because of all the competition, many of the indie studios died off and most could no longer afford to pay filmmakers enough to even recoup their budget. With indie studios no longer able to pay filmmakers a fare wage in order to distribute their films, filmmakers started to simply distribute their films independently.

Until a month ago most independent filmmakers liked to use the line "the model is broken" but if we look at history we can see that the model has always changed and evolved and it's usually because of technology. The model isn't broken, it is evolving. The best thing about these last few years has been the realization that if no one is willing to pay us a fair price to distribute our films, then we as independent filmmakers can do it ourselves. There have been countless interesting stories, ideas and methods independent filmmakers have come up with in order to distribute their films some with great success. (As pictured above with The Age of Stupid's 550 screen global premier) For the first time ever, filmmakers have essentially become their own studios. Filmmakers today are not only creating all of their films independent of a studio but they are also distributing their films through theaters (although usually few), manufacturing and selling their DVD's themselves and getting their films seen thousands and in some cases millions of times online (usually free). The problem with all of this is that it is a lot of work and in most cases, while filmmakers are able to make some money it usually isn't enough to sustain.

In short: With a saturation of filmmakers making films independent from any studio control, the proliferation of the internet and the ability to view films for free, independent studios were no longer willing to take risks on content in an extremely competitive and new marketplace. Filmmakers then took their content and distributed it themselves with minor success but not enough to sustain.

So what does all of this mean? What can we learn from this? Time has shown there is always a demand for innovative, thought provoking content that takes risks. Time has also shown that it is possible for filmmakers to make films independent from large studios. Time has shown that there is an advantage to having a distribution company that has it's own unique characteristics so people can easily distinguish one company from another. And unfortunately time has shown that filmmakers can self distribute but at this time it is still not a greatly successful method.

So what can we learn from all of this? Before I jump into what I feel is the next logical and practical step for true film independence, I want to talk about three instances where artists attempted something similar to what I am about to talk about. Two of these attempts failed but one was, and continues to be, an astounding success.

UNITED ARTISTS

This wonderful photo was taken on the day Mary Pickford (actress), Douglas Fairbanks (actor), Charlie Chaplin (actor/director) and David Griffith (director) formed United Artists in 1919.

These four artists were some of the leading figures in the Hollywood silent film era. Even in the silent film era, artists grew tired of the studio's controlling hand and decided to join forces and create a company that would allow them to create freely and have better control over their work and futures. The terms of the company were that each of them owned 20% of the company (the other 20% went to their lawyer) and they were each responsible for independently producing 5 films a year.

Even though films typically weren't as long as they are today, they soon realized that it was difficult to create that much content. The trend was also pushing for longer and longer films, which put even more strain on each one of them. After only a few years Griffith dropped out and then the rise of sound films quickly wiped out the careers of both Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.

So although the idea of a company formed by artists to independently produce and distribute their work sounded great, the key problems seemed to be that they were unable to create enough content to make a successful company and that they were unable to adapt to the new changes in technology.

THE DIRECTOR'S COMPANY

In 1972, Charlie Bludhorn, who was critical in reviving Paramount Pictures by taking risks on films like The Godfather and Chinatown, came up with an idea. What if he got three of the hottest directors of the time and allowed them to make any film they wanted for under $3 million dollars. He recruited Francis Ford Coppola after the success of The Godfather, Peter Bogdanovich after the success of The Last Picture Show and William Friedkin after his success with The French Connection and together they formed The Director's Studio. At the time it seemed like an idea that couldn't fail but after producing only 2 films, greed quickly tore The Director's Studio apart.

The problem with The Director's Studio lied in the ownership agreement. Each director owned an equal part of the company, which meant that they also would share in each others successes and failures. This quickly led to problems as directors quickly realized they had a lot at stake financially with the other director's films.

What happens if my films always make money but his don't? It wouldn't be fair if he always gets paid off of my work and I always lose money off of his!

There are also issues about how frequently a director puts out content.

So how is it fair if I've already made two profitable films and he's still developing his first? He's making money off my films while he takes his sweet time with his!

The disintegration of both United Artists and The Director's Company were based on pressures to continually pump out a large amount of content and the inevitable greed that takes over once every artist is financially invested in each others work. But we can learn a lot from their efforts and a model came after them that seemed to hit the nail on the head.

A model where a group of artists banned together to gain complete control over their work and figured out the elusive and difficult task of how to sustain.

IMAGE COMICS

I'm guessing most of you are wondering wtf just happened but please bear with me. Now on the surface comics don't have anything to do with independent film but lets look a little closer into the origins of what is now one of the most successful publishers in American comics today.

In the early 1990's a group of talented freelance artists grew tired of working for one of the largest comic companies, Marvel Comics (the creators of Spider Man and the X-Men). The main complaint being that after these artists would create characters for the books they were commissioned to work on, Marvel Comics then technically owned them, and they were able to merchandise and take control of the characters (profiting from them) and also had the power to creatively do whatever they wanted with them.

In short: the artists wanted more control over the work they created.

So in 1992 seven artists set out on their own and formed Image Comics.

But instead of all owning the company equally, they did something very unique.

Image's organizing charter had two key provisions:

Image would not own any creator's work; the creator would.

No Image partner would interfere – creatively or financially – with any other partner's work.

Image itself would own no intellectual property except the company trademarks: its name and its logo. Each Image partner founded his own studio, which published under the Image banner but was autonomous from any central editorial control. One of the artists withdrew during the formative stages to deal with his sister's illness, so Image originally consisted of six studios:

Extreme Studios owned by Rob Liefeld

Highbrow Entertainment, owned by Erik Larsen

Shadowline, owned by Jim Valentino

Todd McFarlane Productions, owned by Todd McFarlane

Top Cow Productions, owned by Marc Silvestri

Wildstorm Productions, owned by Jim Lee

This group of independent artists still thrives today and for a brief period of time, their comics even outsold DC comics (the comic brand that created Superman and Batman).

What can we learn from this model?

Essentially they are a company of individual independents, who produce content on their own, yet share the logo with a group of artists who share similar characteristics, giving the company a unique style, which makes it easy for people to distinguish their content from other companies. They use their umbrella company as a way of distributing a body of consistent content, as opposed to a single title, which enables them to distribute their work into more places than anyone could individually, and they have created a business model in which no one is dependent on each others work. Financial successes and failures of a single independent does not (directly) have any affect on the other independents involved.

Do you see where I'm going with this? We as independent filmmakers already have our own production companies. What we need now is to form group distribution companies or "Film Collectives" in order to effectively, independently distribute.

This next step is inevitable. We can choose to avoid it's the next logical step in a long history of fighting for our independence.

The Evolution of Film Independence has gone as follows:

Studio Produced Films and Studio Distribution

Studio Produced Films (with artists in control) and Studio Distribution

Independently Produced Films with Studio Distribution

Independently Produced Films and Independent (self) Distribution

The biggest problem facing filmmakers today is that this latest era of Independently Produced Films and Independent (self) Distribution doesn't quite work.

So we have two options: we could retreat back to the era of Independently Produced Films with Studio Distribution OR we can modify all that we have learned these last couple of years and take the final step in securing our independence.

This next evolutionary step towards total independence will be...

Independently Produced Films and Independent (group) Distribution.

aka - The Independent Film Collectives

So what is Independent (group) Distribution?

Independent (group) Distribution is when a team of independent filmmakers unite under one Film Collective, in order to effectively distribute their collective works. A Film Collective is nothing more than a trademarked name and logo that the Film Collective's members share. No one is the owner of the Film Collective and the Film Collective does not own any of the films, the filmmakers do. Each filmmaker is only responsible for their films and are not involved creatively or financially with any other filmmaker's work. Each Film Collective member must have their own production company from which each individual filmmaker's films are produced through and which any and all money earned through the Film Collective is paid to. Each Film Collective member's films should share similar characteristics to help distinguish their films from other distribution companies, and all films (and film related merchandise) should be available for viewing and purchasing on the Film Collective's website (although not exclusively).

So what is the advantage of Independent (group) Distribution over Independent (self) Distribution?

Let's take a look.

INDEPENDENT (group) DISTRIBUTION VS. INDEPENDENT (self) DISTRIBUTION

First and foremost we must remember that although film has incredible artistic and social relevance and is one of the most powerful art forms of our time, we also have to remember that the distribution side of things is a business (which is why most of us would rather let studios deal with it).

But this is all we have to know.

Like any business, no matter what you sell, you have good customers and bad customers. A good customer is someone who continues doing business with you throughout the years. A good customer is someone you can rely on, a bad customer is someone you can't.

Going up to a movie theater with your one film and asking if it can play there one weekend may be possible at some mom and pop theaters, but by and large it's a very difficult process. Why? Because for larger movie theaters they have good customers that continue to give them consistent business through a body of content. Business usually feels so cold to many of us because it's simply a numbers game without any heart, but if we realize that all we have to do is play by the numbers we'll be able to get our foot in the door. A lone filmmaker with their one film is an unknown, maybe they'll take a chance but most likely they won't because their other clients (studio distribution companies) bring in typically a known amount of people. They can see that this distribution company is usually good or great for business (or they wouldn't continue to use them) and why would they choose an unknown client over a client that is typically good (or even great) for business?

But what do you think would happen if you went to a theater and said, "Hi, I'm a filmmaker who works for an artist owned Distribution Company. We are a collective of award winning independent filmmakers with thousands of devout fans and if you would like to do business with us we can guarantee 5 to 10 films a year for theatrical screenings. We do our own promotions and in the past, our numbers show that 70% of our screenings get sold out while another 10% usually sells close to 80% capacity."

Now we're talking their language and by forming film collectives the amount of doors that will become available to us will increase considerably. Not only for theatrical screenings but also for DVD markets, streaming and downloading options, international markets, EVERYTHING. If we join forces we can leverage our collective content to make leaps and bounds towards sustainability.

Next, and on a much more human level, which sounds like a more rewarding and enriching experience: self distributing your films or forming a company with a bunch of artists you respect and are inspired by - a group of artists that you can now call friends - or continuing to do everything alone? Now I don't know about you, but to me the idea of rolling into a festival with a bunch of friends, watching and supporting each others films while being on the lookout to recruit new and talented artists/human beings (for the Film Collective), sounds way cooler than eating popcorn alone in a dark theater.

Last but not least, forming a Film Collective will also make everything easier on our fans. You tell me, as a film fan, which site do you think you would visit more frequently.

Beetle Queen Conquers Tokyo or Factory 25?

Now let me start off by saying that I really do love the Beetle Queen Conquers Tokyo site. It has all the info I need, one of the best trailers I've seen in a long time and I've referred back to it every once in a while to see how her film is doing. In short, it is as effective as a single film website can be.

The Factory 25 website on the other hand is a website I check out much more frequently. Even though it is just a DVD distribution company (and a fine one at that) I still find myself frequenting that site just to check out their growing list of interesting looking films which they consistently expose me to. So the reason I check out this site more is simply because there is more stuff to check out. Now imagine if this were a Film Collective. Imagine if all the filmmakers on here were selling their DVDs, streaming their films and writing their blog posts all on this one site. How much more exposure do you think your film would get then? How much more frequently would your fans check out that site?

In short: Independent (group) Distribution not only would open more doors for filmmakers financially than with Independent (self) distribution, but it would also be more rewarding to be amongst a team of your peers, it would require filmmakers to share the workload as opposed to doing everything themselves, and it would create a more compelling and simpler way for our fans to follow, share, and support us.

What is the advantage of Independent (group) Distribution over Studio Distribution?

STUDIO DISTRIBUTION VS. INDEPENDENT (GROUP) DISTRIBUTION

aka - the great indie divide

The future of independent film will be split into two groups: those that use studio distribution and those that use self (group) distribution. Each path has its own set of advantages, risks, and requisite sacrifices, each of which will weigh differently from filmmaker to filmmaker . So let's dissect each one a little bit to see which path is better for you and the types of films you want to make.

Studio Distribution companies have again been willing to pay a lot of money to essentially purchase the film off of you and attempt to turn a profit (for themselves) off of your work. This is great for the filmmaker because distribution companies are again paying filmmakers a million dollars or more for their films and they take the work (and headaches) of distribution off the hands of the filmmakers. In an even more ideal world, the distributors will make a lot of money off of your film and then when you are ready to make your next film the distribution company, which also acts as a production company for certain films and filmmakers, will then fund AND distribute your next film for another handsome fee.

This is the partnership Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith and other filmmakers were fortunate enough to get. The distribution company took a risk on them, which paid off, and in turn they continued taking more risks with these artists because they believed in them. If you can find a distribution company that believes in you and will continue to allow you to make the kinds of films you want to make, then I say go for it. You are in a small, small minority and you are fortunate to be in such a position.

But consider this. Let's say you sell your first feature to a distribution company for a million dollars. The distribution company makes a good amount of money off your film and everyone is happy. Then you are ready to make your second film. The distribution company decides to both produce and distribute your film for a pile of money. Life is awesome! You then make the film and they distribute it but this time it doesn't make much money. Now you are ready to make your third movie, which isn't your typical film because you are trying to grow as an artist. The distribution company is no longer willing produce your film for you (unless you make some fundamental changes that alter the intent of the film) but if you do get it made they would consider distributing it. So since you are unwilling to compromise you go and make the film independently and raise enough money through financiers after showing them your previous body of work. You complete the film but the studio that has distributed your two previous films are not interested in distributing this film because it's a little too controversial or not marketable or too unique. Okay fine, so you sell your film to another distribution company for a small profit and they only play the film in a limited release and don't heavily push DVD sales.

Now this example is all made up but the point is, what do you do if these studios don't believe in you? What happens if they aren't willing to produce or distribute your next film. This is a situation many filmmakers find themselves in. Sometimes filmmakers can find a compromise, sometimes filmmakers can't. The point in all of this is that essentially your future is not in your hands, it is dependent on the studios who have the final say in what is worth producing and distributing and they could essentially put you in the exact same spot as Independently Producing and Independently (self) Distributing your films at any stage of the game.

If you think you would be immune to something like this, look at the last projects Paul Thomas Anderson and Steven Soderburg tried to put together

Steven Soderburgh’s films have earned 14 Oscar nominations; his films have won five and he’s even won for Best Director. The star that was attached to Moneyball: Brad Pitt, the biggest film star on the entire planet! But those credentials didn't stop Sony from pulling the plug on the project just days before shooting the film.

The reason they pulled the plug was because Soderburgh turned in a rewritten script that was much different than the script that was approved before. In short, the studio didn't believe in him. I also imagine that the fact that his last film Che was considered a flop didn't help.

Paul Thomas Anderson's films have also earned 14 Oscar nominations with two of them winning. His follow up film to his most nominated film to date (There will be Blood) was also unable to secure financing. Universal passed on producing the picture and as of now it has been unable to secure financing. I haven't read the script but from what I've read it's a $35 million dollar religious-based film.

Now it's easy to put together that it isn't Paul Thomas Anderson's skills or ability to make back money that is in question. I'm guessing that the reason that no one will pick this film up is because the filmmaker has chosen to make a film about a controversial topic. A topic that no studio will get behind no matter how talented the artist is.

In short: Going through the studio distribution route can offer a lot of money and take the hard work of distribution out of your hands. However, for the most part, this relationship only remains in tact as long as your films continue to make the financiers money and as long as you don't make films about daring or controversial subjects.

With Independent (group) Distribution your work isn't over once the film is. After the film is done you are now responsible for distributing your film out into the world.

But what exactly does distribution entail?

1) Advertising (spreading the word about the film)

2) Theatrical screenings

3) DVD manufacturing and sales

4) Online streaming/downloading

Hmmmm, it doesn't seem quite as intimidating when you break it down like that.

Now let's update this a little more so it's more relevant to today

1) Advertising - As we all well know now, word of mouth has always been the most effective form of advertising and the proliferation of social networking and the internet has only made word of mouth easier and more wide spread then ever before. The idea of paying a lot of money to advertise your independent film today almost seems comical. Google and social network sites have allowed good films to explode overnight and create a demand for content that is felt all over the world.

in short: If you make a good film that people like, today's technology allows people to spread the word and more effectively market your film better than any marketing campaign could ever do.

2) Theatrical Screenings - This years Academy Award nominated film Blue Valentine (through a distribution deal) opened on 4 screens on opening weekend. Together with the Academy Award Nomination, the fantastic reviews and the amazing word of mouth, the film is now playing in 39 cities in the U.S.

Now I don't know about you but after forming a film collective, the idea of opening on four screens across the U.S. doesn't seem like an impossibility and it also doesn't seem like a huge personal risk. The Distribution Company opened the film on 4 screens and since then have expanded and expanded due to demand created by great reviews, fantastic word of mouth and Academy Award nominations. This is a formula that isn't restricted to only Distribution companies. If you were to sell out shows in one area, it would be far easier and realistic to approach other theaters and see if they are interested in having a screening. Will the option be available to us to have our films seen in 80 cities across the U.S. on opening weekend? Probably not but if you look at almost every single independent film that gets studio distribution, it usually starts in NY and L.A. and if the tickets sell, it slowly makes its way out to more and more cities. Film Collectives could also follow this exact same model.

In short: By building a fan base through a Film Collective, filmmakers will have nearly the same ability to get films into a small amount of theaters as distribution companies. Then, depending on how well the film is received, a Film Collective filmmaker will have more leverage to expand the films release into more theaters. At this time Distribution Companies have the advantage but after a few years of screening and networking with lots of different films and filmmakers, the Film Collectives audience will grow as will theaters who enjoy doing business with them.

3) DVD manufacturing and Sales -

Today if you simply google "DVD manufacturing" you'll get pages of places that can print professional looking DVDs and DVD packaging for an affordable price. Also by manufacturing your DVD yourself you can guarantee your film won't get a garbage packaging job which misleads people as to what the film is actually about and turn fans off because as a collectible, it has no aesthetic or artistic value.

In 2009 DVD sales dropped 13% and DVD players have dropped to its lowest level in 7 years. This trend is echoing the same change that fundamentally changed the music industry as people are starting to watch more films through downloads, VOD, Netflix, and TV digital recorders as opposed to buying hard copies.

How could we possibly get our DVD's into all the stores across the U.S. that studio distribution companies could? We can't, but fortunately for us, DVDs are going the way of the dodo. In the near future we won't have to fight for shelf space in a sea of Hollywood films. With each passing year DVD sales will continue to go down and down and the easiest way to find the DVD you want will be on the internet - the great equalizer. Those in Film Collectives will be able to sell their DVD's on their websites and also be able to create accounts on sites like Amazon, simply because the Film Collective will have a continuous body of work. In fact in the future, it will be those in Film Collectives that will be better equipped to sell more DVDs than independent studio distribution companies. Why?

While DVDs are well on their way out, the desire to have a physical copy of one's favorite films will never go away. DVDs are going to be the equivalent to vinyl records for musicians: a collector's item for the true fan. And who do you think will have an easier time making and selling well crafted, personal DVDs that hardcore fans will be more likely to appreciate: those made by a studio distribution company or those made by the filmmakers themselves?

In short: While seemingly impossible to out do a Distribution company ten years ago, the internet has leveled the playing field and will soon create the demand for DVDs almost exclusively for hardcore fans, a position which Film Collective filmmakers will find themselves at an advantage.

4) VOD/Online Streaming/Downloading - The sole reason that studios bought so many films at this year's Sundance is because they are starting to see the potential profit that can be made from VOD/online streaming and downloading. Do you think this many Studios would buy films if they weren't feeling confident they could make that money back? Of the 22 films (that I could find) that were bought up, 20 of them were bought for worldwide or U.S. rights. Kevin Smith has decided to take his film on the road and self distribute and one other film only sold the U.S. theatrical rights.

So what is happening here? Where are these studios going to make their money back? According to the L.A. Times, in 9 months in 2010 VOD, sales rose 20%. But rose 20% from what? How much money does an average film earn on VOD? How much money has any film earned on VOD?

These are questions that you will not find any answers to. I encourage someone to prove me wrong. I would actually love to get some numbers on what some of the possible earnings have been for indie films. But again, these numbers are a well kept secret. The only info I could find that could give me a clue at what these VOD numbers could possibly be, comes straight from the mouth of Comcast's VP of Entertainment Services, Diana Kerekes, "the company's number of indie offerings on demand has grown from 26 films in 2006 to more than 2,000. And with more than 200,000 indie purchases a month, the appetite for niche films is growing."

200,000 purchases a month for niche indie films! How much do they charge for Comcast VOD films? $4.99. How much of that money goes to the Studios? According to the NY Times, As much as 80%. So lets see, that's $798,400 a month for niche indie films and that's JUST COMCAST. That isn't counting Amazon VOD, Apple TV, Google or the other beast that is about to change, Netflix.

According to Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings, their entire approach is quickly changing. "By every measure we are now primarily a streaming company that also offers DVD-by-mail," Hastings said. "DVD-by-mail shipments are still growing, but streaming for us is much larger and growing much faster."

Now the most important thing to remember in all of this is that those who have content that is in demand will always have the upper hand. There is fierce competition going on in order to get as much content as they can because as I said, those with content that is in demand always has the upper hand. Those that do have in demand content are now able to leverage that power in a BIG way. According to the NY Post,

Netflix is making an aggressive play for in-season episodes of hit TV shows to expand its Web streaming service. The company is in talks with studios about gaining access to current episodes of primetime shows and is willing to pay between $70,000 and $100,000 per episode, according to a person familiar with the matter.

So hopefully you can see in all of this, that there is a LOT of money to be made in the VOD/online/streaming world and the numbers are only going to get higher and higher as they compete with one another over who gets first dibs on the content.

This is why Distribution Companies are back and buying up content. These are big numbers, numbers so big that they can afford to spend over a million dollars on an indie film and feel confident they can turn it into a profit.

This is an option that isn't available through self distribution because these large corporations won't deal with an individual filmmaker with a single film. Large corporations want large clients and if you are able to build up a Film Collective that can put out about 5-10 films a year, I'm guessing, with the type of money that is now being made on niche films, you'll be able to play with the big boys too. Then we're not talking about a million dollars, we're talking about millions of dollars.

THE PRICE OF INDEPENDENCE

Now all this talk of money and the possibilities of earning lots of it independently comes with some responsibility. This post isn't about the money. What this is about is being able to take control over your own future and being able to, for the first time ever, be allowed to freely create the films you want to create and sustain without having to answer to investors, studios or distribution companies. We as filmmakers will have the opportunity to have our voices heard in numbers never before possible.

So let's say you earn one million dollars off of your film through your Film Collective. Now what? With this newfound freedom also comes new responsibility. If I were you I would put at least half of that money into your production company and divide the rest up with your cast and crew. The money in your production company is essentially your budget for your next film. The money that goes to you is essentially the money you have to live off of. Hopefully that money will be enough so you can work on your art full time and then when the time is right, you'll have $500,000 ready to go to make your next film truly independently.

Do you have to follow this model? No, I can't tell anyone what to do but if you want to get into a cycle where you are able to continuously create an uncompromised body of work, this is what you're going to have to do. You have to invest in yourself and in your films. Now I can already hear the critics squawking about no one wanting to put their own money into their films. If you are in a Film Collective I wouldn't think of it exactly as "your" money. I would think of it as money your fans gave you in order for you to continue making uncompromised work. As this last step of the evolution of Independence unfolds, you can no longer think of yourself as just a filmmaker and your fans just as fans; you have to think of yourself as your own micro-studio and your fans as your financiers. You have to consider your next project and make sure you have enough to continue making films. If you squander that opportunity you will then have to go through more traditional paths in order to make films, paths that don't offer you the opportunity to create a body of uncompromised work.

If this sounds silly or ridiculous to you then I guess I'd question your motivations to become a filmmaker in the first place. To me personally, all I want is to live a comfortable life and make the films I want to make. It's as easy as that. Forming a Film Collective could enable that to happen. If you're strictly in this film business to make money, that is fine but this is obviously not the path for you. This is an option where the idea that is trying to be expressed is more valuable than the money it makes. An option where your future ideas are worth investing in with your fans hard earned dollars, because you know without them your ideas would never be able to see the light of day.

We are a species whose creativity sets us apart from all others on this planet. Creativity has always been the precursor to innovation and change. It was the Wright Brothers passion and creativity that enabled man to fly, not the idea of how much profit could be made as a result of it. Creativity is vital for us in order to evolve as a species and by something as simple as forming a group with other like minded filmmakers you could have an opportunity to use every creative bone in your body and try to express yourself more freely than ever before. In addition to all of that, you'd also be taking part in a beautiful trend that is happening across the U.S. A trend in which people are choosing to go to farmers markets instead of chain stores, buying a CD off of a musician on kickstarter as opposed to illegally downloading it for free, it is a trend in which people are consciously going out of their way to give their money to the people who help their community, not the corporations that profit off of it.

In short: Forming a Film Collective is a viable method to create a body of uncompromised work that can be accomplished by teaming up with like minded artists in order to gain leverage to get your films in theaters and enable VOD/online streaming and downloading deals with bigger companies. The small size of the group allows you to connect to your fans in a much more personal, tangible and meaningful way.

So how do we get from here to there? How should we form Film Collectives?

Fortunately, a lot of the ground work is already done but I'm not going to get into it now because this post is already long enough as it is. But in the next post I'll say exactly how I personally would go about forming a Film Collective and give you the stepping-stones I plan on using (once my film is finished) in order to get your Film Collective off the ground.

Thank you all for your time,

An exciting future awaits.

Ben Hicks has lived in California, Florida, Chicago, Tokyo and now lives by the ocean in Taiwan. For cash he's taught English, sold knives, washed cars, moved furniture, plunged strippers toilets and countless other jobs. His hobby is making films. To date, Ben has written and directed two award winning short films and helped co-found Elephant Dreams Pictures and Fandependent. Currently Ben is in the middle of making his first feature film, Kids Go Free to Fun Fun Time.

24 notes · View notes

fandependent · 14 years

Text

We are incredibly thrilled for all the excitement and debate the Manifesto and interview have generated. As we move into the next phase, we’d like to update all of you Fandependent Film Fans. Fandependent Films is bigger than the Manifesto. The Manifesto (which you can read here) was created to stir up our imagination and to lay out a few of the possible options out there that could be available to us if we join forces. The attention swirling around the Manifesto has ignited a discussion within the independent film community and has allowed many to think more critically about what we need and what the best way would be for us to make a living as filmmakers. Many think $0.25 a view isn’t enough. Wonderful! There isn’t even a platform out there that gives filmmakers $0.25 a view! We are delighted that the manifesto was a springboard for all of us to begin a conversation about what watching a film is really worth. Some people love the posse idea while others hate it. Wonderful! What do you like best about it? Have any better ideas? The wheels are turning now as many of us think about what the best options are to build a sustainable future. The core of Fandependent Films, we believe, is the solution many of us are seeking. Fandependent Films is bigger than all of us, it’s about filmmakers and film fans from all over the globe creating an entirely new film community. It’s one where we can collaborate and create a future that will help us sustain. We have the core, and now it’s time for phase two. THE CORE The core of Fandependent Films is this: Find, be found, support, sustain. For fans it is a place to find and support the filmmakers they appreciate. For filmmakers, it’s a place to be found, support (other filmmakers) and sustain. It’s a site where filmmakers join forces and put their content on one platform, which allows film fans to easily find and support independent films and filmmakers. When a film fan chooses to give directly to the filmmaker, they are participating in Fandependent Culture. And with Fandependent Films, we’d like the fan to be able to give as much as they’d like over the minimum contribution. Fandependent Culture is one where fans are in control of funding the voices they want to hear; a culture where filmmakers can continue to create with the support of their fans. Fans give to filmmakers and in return, filmmakers are able to give back to their fans. That is the core of Fandependent Films. A NEW OPTION Fandependent Films doesn’t need to take-down Film Festivals, Netflix, Hulu or even people who market for independent film. These institutions have worked for years, and for some filmmakers these institutions still work today. But for many of us, we know from experience that no festival, distribution deal or person to market our film will help us sustain as filmmakers. What we are doing is providing a new option for filmmakers who can’t afford agents, marketing firms, and publicity agents. Fandependent Films is a new option for filmmakers who don’t get selected into the elite film festivals, an option for filmmakers who have used many of these institutions and still are unable to sustain - an option for most of the filmmakers around the world. Studio films have things set up to work for them. “Independent” films have things set up that work for them. Now a new name and type of film is born called Fandependent Films, and now it’s our turn to create a new path that will work best for us and our fans. CRITICS The manifesto was just that – a manifesto. So yes, it did what most manifestos do - challenged the system in place, the people who work for them and the people who want to be in them. We’re glad it got everyone’s attention. But our real focus from day one has been helping independent filmmakers sustain and creating a direct link between truly independent filmmakers and fans. We are creating a new path to success, rather than continually trying to march down same old road. People can say “it will never work.” As filmmakers, we hear that comment time and time again and we all know that if you try hard enough, anything is possible. PHASE 2: THE PIONEERS OF FANDEPENDENT FILMS If you believe in Fandependent Films and want to join the community, we are looking for filmmakers and film fans interested in discussing how to best build around the core and create a solid platform that will ensure our ability to sustain. If you are interested in contributing ideas and becoming a Pioneer of Fandependent Films please e-mail me at [email protected] Then we can begin a dialogue where we are encouraged to express our wildest and boldest ideas and have them critiqued by those who have the best intentions in mind. A discussion where people fight for and challenge each others opinions under a roof of respect. A discussion where together, we can build a future which will set us all free.

3 notes · View notes

fandependent · 14 years

Text

The Fandependent Films' Manifesto

This is a rally cry, not just for independent film fans and filmmakers, but also for all creators, artists and their fans. For all who admire, love and are inspired by the human's ability to express oneself. I’m asking you all to take a moment to read this, form your own opinion, and if interested, join us in creating and fighting for, a cultural revolution. (actually it will take more than a moment so grab a comfortable seat, some tea, some coffee or a beer. This is a big post but I promise, this time I'm going to explain EVERYTHING.) First, we must encourage and support each other to step away from the old ways of media consumption: an unbalanced relationship where we are given a limited amount of options that are pre-approved by major studios and corporations to protect and promote their interests and whose solitary goal is to generate the largest margin of profit possible. What if we all, in 2010 bravely took a step towards a future where we the people, dictate what is worthy of being made, a future where we take a stand to liberate and promote creativity, true freedom of expression, experimentation and accelerate the proliferation of ideas. A step towards creating an explosion of uncompromised, ambitious, brave, original work that asks questions (large and small), challenges our ideas, entertains us, challenges authority and educates and enriches our culture as a whole. I know this sounds ideal but I'm guessing many of you might doubt that it is truly possible. Let me assure you, everything I’m going to say is absolutely 100% possible and all it will take is a little help, a different perspective and literally, the push of a few buttons. In my last post I talked about some of the problems filmmakers face (which you can read about here but now I want to dig in a little more and clearly point out ALL of the options (that are worth mentioning) we as independent filmmakers have today.

THE PROBLEM WITH FREE Believe me, I'm a supporter of downloading, streaming, pirating movies etc. If it's a studio film or even a so called "independent film" made for a few million dollars, I'm not against viewing it without paying. I don't feel bad because even if I bought the DVD, I know that my money isn't really going to the artist but to a sea of middlemen. But now it's getting to a point where many filmmakers are choosing to self distribute. Filmmakers are cutting out all the middle men and giving their films (and even their rights to their films) away on the internet for free in hopes of their film getting spread all over the net and in hopes of earning some money. Now although films like Ink, Sita Sings the Blues and Steal This Film are making a decent amount of money by giving their films away for free (and by asking for fan support), it's still not a model to help them sustain. I talked to Jamie King, the Director of Steal This Film 1 and Steal This Film 2. He said that both films cost him roughly around $45,000 to make (without anyone getting paid), they were seen for free online an estimated 5 million times on various pirate sites and platforms, and by asking fans to support them by donating at the end of the film, both films have received a total of roughly $42,000. A FILMMAKER WHOSE FILMS HAVE BEEN SEEN AN ESTIMATED 5 MILLION TIMES STILL ISN'T ABLE TO BREAK EVEN. Yet perhaps the most depressing news out of all of this is that this is THE BEST model for indie filmmakers out there today. THE PROBLEM WITH HULU, VOD AND NETFLIX Jenny Abel, the director of Abel Raises Cain has her film on a variety of well known platforms. How much does a filmmaker get per view on Hulu after all the middlemen get their cut? 1 or 2 pennies! If that isn't bad enough Jenny says that she actually makes even more money off of HULU than she does with her VOD sales (even though for fans it costs $2.99). How much do filmmakers get if Netflix wants to use your film? Jenny told me that Netlix bought 180 of her DVD's and after the middle man got their cut for brokering the deal (70/30 split) her grand total was $1,260. Netflix continues to get paid month after month, Jenny will never get money from Netflix again. THE PROBLEM WITH FILM FESTIVALS First, I must say that I'm not attacking the people behind film festivals. I understand and truly appreciate most of their genuine efforts to support and expose independent filmmakers. What I am attacking is the Film Festival as a platform for filmmakers because no matter how good a festival's intentions might be, it is an old inefficient model that no longer works. Major Film Festivals are now very similar to Major studios and by that I mean that these giant festivals cost a lot of money to run, and to recoup their expenses they need films with the largest target audience in order to make money and sustain. Again, this makes sense financially for them but for the last 10 years or so the major festivals have pretty much closed their doors on probably close to 95% of the independent voices out there over more marketable, low budget studio "indies". We need a new perspective and realize that every film festival depends on us for their content and their ability to make money, yet we are the ones that have to pay for the possibility of being accepted and if we are fortunate enough to be selected, chances are we won't see a dime for our work. Yet without our content or our submissions, every film festival in the world would crumble overnight. There is no festival screen in the world that could get your film seen by more people than the internet. We have all the content they need and a means of exposing our work to a larger audience then they ever could. The only perks major film festivals give us now (for those lucky enough to get in) are credibility, networking, a good spotlight and a chance for fans to find you. But do you need Sundance to network, get credibility and fans? Films like Ink and Sita Sings the Blues are perfect examples of films that gained huge followings and credibility, and they didn't need a Sundance seal of approval to get them. Now I'm not saying festivals are worthless and I understand that they can really help a few of us, but I feel it's important for all of us filmmakers to realize that we don't NEED them. Film Festivals are the ones that actually DEPEND ON US, and once we fully understand and realize how powerful we truly are, then we can start to fight for a future that is best for us and our fans. If a major studio wants theatres to switch to digital projectors, (or THX sound or whatever it is they want) do you know how they get that done? Leverage. Studios threaten to take their content elsewhere and the theatres cave in to their demands. Why? Because the theatres don't really have a choice; the studios have all the content and the theatres are worthless without it. Why aren't we all joining forces and applying the same leverage to film festivals to help us get a fair share to help us sustain? Many of us can't even break even yet we are paying them for the potential to make money off of our content? To be honest I don't think we even need to flex our muscle, but it's crucial for us to understand that together WE DO HAVE LEVERAGE, and if we need to, it is a tool that is available to us. So why don't we need to start applying our leverage? Because to be honest the model is so broken that I don't even see the point in participating in it even more. Why don't we just create new models that work better for us and our fans? THE BEAUTY OF KICKSTARTER.COM Kickstarter is arguably the best resource out there today to help filmmakers. It's not a platform to get your film seen, it's a platform to help your film get made/finished. It's a site that relies on fans to help support projects and artist they believe in. So far, two other New Breed Directors and myself have had projects on Kickstarter and all were successful. Mike Ambs' film, For Thousands of Miles raised 8% more than his goal for a total of $8,945. My film, Kids Go Free to Fun Fun Time raised 21% more than our goal for a total of $6,042. And just recently Gregory Bane's documentary, Driven raised 9% more than his goal for a whopping total of $27,210! This unbelievable resource is allowing filmmakers to continue doing what they do and it proves one thing: that even in the worse recession in decades, fans are willing to support the arts if there is a platform that is easy to use, they get something in return and that their donations are going directly to support the artists they believe in. Filmmakers and film fans from all over the world, a new option is born.

(previously known as The New Independents. Shout out to Merrinell for tweeting this beautiful new name which she graciously let us adopt) Now even though Fandependent Films is a platform created for truly independent filmmakers, I’m pretty sure other independent artists from other mediums (music, comics etc.) could and should pull from this model and adapt it to their own troubled art forms. I’m a filmmaker so I have thought long and hard to think of all the tools filmmakers need. I have no idea the specific problems facing musicians, painters, comic book writers etc. But if independent artists and fans from every medium pull together, then we could start taking steps to dramatically change the way people are informed, entertained, connect, consume and perhaps most importantly: the ability to create change at a speed that was never before possible.

But I must be clear, none of this will be possible without support from our fans.

WHAT IS FANDEPENDENT (FILMS)?

Fandependent function: adjective : relying on fan support to enable continuous creation independent from larger controlling units. ex: fandependent film, fandependent music etc. Fandependent Films is an entirely new name for an entirely new film culture. HOW DOES IT WORK? For film fans we're making it easier than ever to find, view and support truly independent films and filmmakers. Fans are able to see trailers and the first ten minutes of every film for free to help them decide if they want to support the filmmakers on Fandependent Films. Once a fan joins they set up a profile, enter their credit card info and then are able to watch every film on the site. By choosing to watch a film on our site you are supporting and encouraging a filmmakers voice to continue to speaking. You are supporting the voices that questions the things around us, the voices that educate us, the voices that fight for change. You are supporting the voices that make us laugh, make us cry, entertain us and inspire us. And to support a voice like this, all that we ask is that you give the artist...a quarter. A quarter a view is not a lot for a film fan but for a filmmaker, who spent years of their life working on the film and has no means of affording to make another, a quarter a view could change everything. By choosing to give an artist one quarter, not only are you supporting artists and a movement for better films, you are also supporting an entirely new culture. Now the minimum to support these Fandependent Films is a quarter but at the end of the film, if you really like it, you can change your level of support by selecting one of these options. Option 1) $0.50

Option 2) $1.00

Option 3) $2.00

Option 4) Any donation amount over $2.00 (grandma gave me $20.00!) OR The fan also has the option to buy the DVD, poster, soundtrack, download etc. simply by clicking on the merchandise that they’re interested in. By choosing to support artists directly when given a low affordable option over FREE, you are participating in Fandependent Culture. Of course it might be hard for some people to rationalize paying a quarter for something they could get for free (online after you find it and take the time to download it) but this option is cheaper than any video store, cable channels, Netflix (unless you watch over 45 movies a month) AND that money is going directly to the filmmaker! If you're still not convinced let's take a step back and try to fully grasp what life would be like if a small fraction of us chose to support Fandependent filmmakers and their films. A NEW CULTURAL PIPELINE In 2008 the U.S. census bureau estimated that 75% of the population in the United States fell into the White category. Black people made up an estimated 12.4% of the population. Hispanic or Latino made up 14.9% and Asians 4%. (see why these percentages add up to over 100% click here) Now if you were going to invest $60,000,000 into a movie, which race are you going to appeal to? Which race has the best potential to earn profit? Are you going to cast an actress for the lead that, although extremely talented, is not universally considered attractive? The decisions the studios make are not rooted in evil, they are based solely off of the likelihood of earning profit. It’s no wonder that when filmmakers like Tyler Perry and shows like Sex and the City are put out into the world that they draw an intense and loyal fan base. Of course the main reason is because the content is good but another large reason is because this is content made for the seriously under represented minorities of The United States (I’m considering women also as a under represented minority in film even though they are the majority of the population in the U.S.) These under represented minorities had never had the same advantage to tell their stories simply because they don’t appeal to the widest possible theatrical, TV, commercial and cable audience. What would it be like if we were able to hear all those voices that never got heard on a global scale. The old models made it impossible for a romance about a black homosexual woman in her 40’s to be funded. And if the filmmakers somehow managed to raise the funds independently, it was extremely unlikely for the film to get distributed, find its audience and become profitable enough for the filmmaker to make another film. Our audience is no longer the majority of those in our home country, our audience is now the entire world. By allowing these voices to be heard, by supporting these voices to speak out, we as a culture would have a better chance of being educated, understanding and connecting with one another.

By donating $.25 directly to the filmmaker, we could give voices to those who have none. Does it feel like 90% of the movies out there a dumbed down? Why are these films so unimaginative and predictable? With the thousands of screenwriters in Hollywood you're telling me not one came up with an original idea. Again, I'm sure there are lots of original scripts out there but again, if a studio had to invest $70,000,000 into a movie, what target age are you going to go for to have the greatest chance of making your money back and turn a profit? Since teenagers tend to go to the movies more than any other age group, are you going to take a risk on a script that is rated R, somewhat experimental and asks highly charged controversial questions through metaphors that could go way over a teenagers head and possibly upset sponsors and prevent the film from securing cable and TV distribution? By donating $.50 directly to the filmmaker, we could free artists from censorship. Like Documentaries? How about a documentary made by a woman in Thailand who secretly shot footage to expose a group who traffics children into the sex trade? Imagine if filmmaker got at least $.25 per view (times potentially millions of views) and she used half of her earnings to sustain her Non Profit Organization to help fight and spread the word about sex slavery? What if we saw films made by the people of Baghdad and heard their point of view? What if a new bill was going through Washington that many people were unaware of? What if fans had an easy way to support artists they trust to help keep us informed about what is happening around the world around us, instead of relying on corporately owned news networks? What if half of the money An Inconvenient Truth made went directly to helping fight against global warming instead of the pockets of the studios? By donating $1 directly to the filmmaker, we could educate and take part in significant change. All it takes is a mental flip of a switch, for all of us, to choose to invest a small amount of our hard earned dollars into this new Fandependent Culture. HOW TO FIND FILMS IN A SEA OF CONTENT? Trust me, no matter what type of films you want to make or see, Fandependent Films will make it easy for filmmakers and fans to find one another. Fandependent Films is going to have a variety of options to sort through content but one of the most exciting features is for filmmakers to be able to form posses. I heard somewhere that Stanley Kubrick was a huge fan of David Lynch’s film Eraserhead. Quentin Tarantino has collaborated on a few films with Robert Rodriguez (From Dusk till Dawn). Terrence Malick (Days of Heaven) helped produce David Gordon Green’s third feature Undertow. Stephen Spielberg was a big supporter of filmmaker Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forest Gump). Now chances are, if you like Kubrick you’ll probably like Lych. If you like Speilberg you’ll probably like Zemeckis. If you like Malick, you’ll probably like David Gordon Green… Filmmakers are attracted to like-minded filmmakers. Of course none of these filmmakers are identical, they each have their own individual style yet share a similar sensibility. So what we’re doing is asking 8 like-minded filmmakers to join forces and form a Fandependent Film Posse. The Posse then creates their own unique identity and although they are a single group, each filmmaker remains completely independent. If a fan of one filmmaker sees they are a part of a posse, there is a good chance that if the fan checks out the other films in that group that the fan would enjoy the other posse member’s films as well. This ability to form posses not only encourages filmmakers to seek out and support like-minded content, it helps form friendships with other filmmakers instead of fostering competition and helps increase awareness, discoverability, marketability and each filmmaker’s fan base. THE 2011 LAMBS ON FIRE (made-up posse name) SHOWCASE So if we don't submit to film festivals how else could we get exposure, credibility, the ability to see our films on the big screen and get paid enough to sustain ourselves, all wrapped into one? After this explanation I encourage anyone out there to tell me how this method isn't greatly superior to the current film festivals in every way.

Okay, so let's just imagine that Spike Jonze (Where the Wild Things Are), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation), Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and 5 other filmmakers form a posse. If you don't like them just imagine any like minded filmmakers/friends who share a deep respect for each others work and by forming a posse under one name, they are increasing their exposure 8 fold.

p.s. (I realize that these directors could not be a part of Fandependent Films unless they made a film outside of the studio system but using their names makes this example easier) Okay, now this posse starts off with only 8 members maximum but every year, each posse is allowed to include up to 8 new filmmakers into their group. And just by doing that, an Annual Fandependent Posse Showcase is born. This showcase would allow new filmmakers to be embraced by established filmmakers, (credibility in a supportive Fandependent community) get a premier on one weekend (exclusive event) where they are instantly exposed to a loyal fan base that enjoys like minded content (gaining fans/exposure) and is curated by filmmakers they respect (awesome!). The films can be seen in theatres (official theatrical premier) anywhere in the world (ability to capitalize on buzz on a global scale) and sell DVD's (through die hard posse fans who get a cut for selling merchandise) and make money off the screening (Fandependent Filmmakers negotiate fair cuts with theatres). For film festivals you have to pay money (that you don't have) for the remote possibility of getting accepted into a festival (credibility/exposure) packed with other films that compete for prizes (fostering competition) and advertised to the widest possible audience (worse chance of connecting to your fan base) in a specific location (even less of a chance to connect with your fan base) and are unable to sell DVD's (because you can't make it that far out or because it isn't allowed) or get a cut of the screenings (because there might not even be enough demand for your film to fill up any seats or because they simply don't want to). Starting to see how this could work? Lets take curation out of the hands of film festivals and give it to the filmmakers! Whose recommendation would you value more Wes Anderson's (or any other filmmaker you love) or Sundance's? But you're using big name directors, not true independents. It wouldn't work for REAL indie filmmakers. Then lets try an example with REAL indie filmmakers. Now even though our films all seem pretty different and might not make an effective posse because of our varied tastes, for the sake of argument lets just imagine if 8 of The New Breed directors (real indie filmmakers) got together and made our own Fandependent Film Posse. If Zak Forsman, Zeke Zelker, Todd Sklar, Jenny Abel, Gary King, Ry-Russo Young, Mike Ambs and myself formed a posse: together we would have combined total of roughly 5,500 fans (according to facebook). Let's take off 4,500 for those who might not spread the word or are possibly double or triple counted. We're down to 1,000 fans willing spreading the news to their friends to get them to check out our screening series. With that many fans and supporters I imagine we could get a pretty good turnout in at least 2 or 3 cities in the U.S. in our first year! (yet I have a feeling we could actually pull off at least double or triple that but lets think small) The longer our Fandependent Posse stays and grows together and the more filmmakers that join our group the more our fan base would grow year after year. By the time you've completed your second feature (let's say two years later) your posse would now be 16 filmmakers stronger and your fan base could have possibly tripled itself. But how would I be able to see one of these screening series in Action Grove? (or any other random suburb or town) I've talked briefly with Arin Crumley about how Openindie and Fandependent Films could potentially work together. Nothing is set in stone but this is one way how I could envision our two platforms working together. Once a Fandependent Posse announces the premier date, people can request to watch the posse's new films/filmmakers in their area through Openindie. If there is enough demand for a posse showcase in your area you could attend the event at your local movie theatre where part of the ticket revenue goes directly to the filmmakers. If there isn't enough demand for this screening series to play in a theatre near you, and if you have a small but passionate group of fans in your area, then you could host your own screening at a bar or any other type of venue also through Openindie. Or, if you're the only one in your town who really wants to see the films, you can watch the films online the same day as their release on Fandependent Films. If you don't have any fans then your film goes nowhere but if your film does have fans, there is nowhere your film can't go. THE MONEY TRAIL Still not able to sell your friends on giving filmmakers a quarter per view? What if I said to you the fan: that if you join Fandependent Films I could also get you an online magazine with loads of lengthy in depth articles, interviews and behind the scenes videos that focus exclusively on the filmmakers in each or your favorite posses, absolutely free? For filmmakers: what if I told you that you no longer had to worry about tweeting, updating your facebook page, spending hours on the internet looking for potential fans and people to review/blog about your films? What if there was one place for media producers to apply to work for your specific posse? Fandependent Films has got you covered. By putting your hard earned dollar into the hands of filmmakers you aren't just supporting a filmmaker, you're supporting a brand new Fandependent Film Industry. As I said in the last post, this new position, the media producer, is absolutely critical but what if your posse hired a media producing team for a small percentage of your posse's total profits? A creative team that not only likes your work but is dedicated to coming up with clever ways to expose your specific posse to the world. A team that does real interviews (not 5 minute blurbs on Leno), helps gather more fans, spreads news on upcoming screenings, promotes events provides fans with behind the scenes videos and content to help promote upcoming projects. This media would be available to the fan of that posse at no extra cost because they are already paying for it by supporting independent film and specifically this posse. Once money is in the hands of artists as opposed to greedy corporations a dynamic shift of power could take effect. OUT WITH THE OLD The model that exists today for a lot of indie filmmakers is to raise money through investors. This is done typically by raising a lot of money from a few wealthy individuals. Since these investors have put so much of their hard earned dollars they own 50% of the film (rightly so). When the film goes out into the world if the film makes any money it goes something like this. The investors receive 80% (90% sometimes 100%) of the profits until the investors are paid in full, plus 15%. After the investors have been paid back for their generous support, plus an additional 15%, the profits are then split: 50% to the investors, 50% to the production company. But f we are able to raise the budgets for our films through fan donations and merchandise then 100% of that profit goes directly to the filmmakers. So what do filmmakers do with all that dough? This is the financial model we're trying with our feature film. Since we are a low budget film we can't afford to pay the crew. We can feed them and pay them a bit but we can't give them enough to really support themselves. What we can do however is use that 50% of the potential profits (that would have gone to the investors) and give it to the cast and crew. For each key crew position that decides to volunteer their services for free, we offer them a percentage of the film. If the film ends up making money the DP of my film (the super talented Kuba Zelazek) would earn 5% of the films profits forever. So 50% is going directly to the cast and crew for making it all possible and the other 50% is going directly into helping fund our next film. Now there is one other interesting thing that this does: for most films, cast and crew either work for free or are just paid for their services but if everyone gets a small percentage of the films total profits, then everyone also has even more motivation and incentive to make the best film possible. This incentive could help elevate the film in a real way if everyone on board had a personal stake in the films success. What if every film you worked on brought in a new revenue stream FOREVER. Films are a collaborative art form. One that requires actors and actresses, musicians, costume designers, make-up people, camera and lighting people... you know the drill. A huge percentage of creative people pour a lot of sweat into these films and by supporting Fandependent culture, you would be supporting all of them. By donating a dollar per view you could be helping communities of artists create and sustain. With filmmakers, film fans and Fandependent Films: together we can make this a reality. FULL DISCLOSURE (How much does this cost?) We don't take any of your money unless your film is making money. Now to make all of this work, our platform also needs to be able to sustain itself so, like your films, we aren't giving away our services for free but we are practicing what we preach and are allowing the filmmakers to choose what percentage of their revenue our services are worth after streaming costs. Option 1) 5% (recommended for all starting filmmakers) Option 2) 10% (recommended for filmmakers who really love us) Option 3) 15% (recommended for filmmakers who are living out their dreams) The percentage you choose to give back to Fandependent films will help us grow and expand on many of the other ideas that I feel will continue to help our platform grow in the future. The ideas laid out here are just a fraction of what we're working on. Our goal is to form a new community where artists, filmmakers and fans support one another, a community where there is no competition, a community where we all benefit from each others success. If you need help, we will do our best to do so and if we need help to push and fund new ideas forward, we're giving the filmmakers the ability to change how much they support us, depending on how passionately they feel about the idea. Wouldn't it be great if politics were like this? JOIN US Actions always speak louder than words and this is a big idea that may seem difficult to some. Yet day after day I see a growing trend of people choosing to not always make the cheapest and easiest decisions but the decisions to support a cause bigger than themselves. People are choosing to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, people are choosing to shop locally, people are choosing to buy more expensive energy reducing light bulbs and organic foods. People are choosing to support the ideas they believe in. So, now I ask all of you to consider choosing to support artists from around the globe to help our culture grow in a radical new way. Alone, artists are capable of moving mountains but if we all join forces and get enough support from our fans, I truly believe that together, we can reshape the stars. If you believe in this idea and would like to be a part of Fandependent Films, please join us in taking our first steps into a brand new film culture. Next Up: The Dream Team p.s. I apologize for not e-mailing many of the filmmakers from all over the world that have contacted me since the last post. I now realize how archaic e-mail is so if you want to get in contact in the future please get a hold of us on Facebook or Twitter. I can't wait to hear from you and please help spread the word!

2 notes · View notes

fandependent · 14 years

Text

THE IDEA THAT COULD REVOLUTIONIZE INDEPENDENT FILM

I want to assure everyone that this is not a joke. I understand 'revolutionize' is an enormous word and should not be taken lightly so I want to make sure we are all clear on the definition of what the word revolutionize means. Merriam-Webster defines the word revolutionize as follows: revolutionize transitive verb 1 : to overthrow the established government of 2 : to imbue with revolutionary doctrines 3 : to change fundamentally or completely ex: revolutionize an industry This idea could revolutionize the entire independent film industry, and the only reason I say "could" instead of "will" is because to make this a reality, film fans and a majority of the filmmakers out there must work together, believe in and fight for this idea. This idea, if realized, would not only make it possible for an indie filmmakers to sustain but to also to make hundreds of thousands of dollars overnight. Believe me, I understand how preposterous this all might sound. When my team and I were fishing around for ideas on a ways for filmmakers to sustain, our goal was to catch a fish, but for some magical reason, we caught a whale. This idea was so big that at first we didn't even know what we were looking at, but once we stepped back far enough we realized that this idea could change EVERYTHING. But before I talk about this idea I have to reinstate that for this to work we need filmmakers and film fans from all over the world to support this idea, this movement, this revolution. So if you are a filmmaker who wants to make a living as a filmmaker without being dependent on studios, distributors or advertising; or a film fan who wants to see an explosion of uncompromised Independent film: please blog, tweet, tell and spread this to all of your filmmaker and film loving friends. Then tell them to spread it to their filmmaker friends and tell them to translate this into another language and to spread it some more. Now to make a clear decision one must clearly understand all the options. I know there are lots of filmmakers out there that know the current state of Indie film isn't so good right now but for many filmmakers I'm assuming you're too busy watching films and working on your own stuff to bother with the concerns of the film industry. Let me assure you, that you that you won't really know how dark the present is until you contrast it with the light of tomorrow. Please read this post and question me if you think I am wrong in any way. ************************************ So lets talk about where we are today. To start, we can no longer look to the past for answers on independent filmmaking. The past is the past and we must look ahead and adapt our strategies and expectations for what I feel are the new bars of "success" for independent filmmakers. The Old Bars of Success were... A) Validating yourself as an "Independent Filmmaker" by getting into a good film festival (Sundance, Cannes, Toronto etc.) B) Getting a distribution deal. C) Getting your films into theaters resulting in exposure, "credible" reviews and a growing fan base. D) Being able to continue making films and earn a living through studios who finance and believe in your work. These are (in my opinion) the NEW Bars of Success A) Validating yourself as an "Independent Filmmaker" by getting tens of thousands of views on the internet (through youtube, pirate sites, your site etc.) B) Gain fans, reviews, credibility, cash and exposure through your website, blogs, social network sites, engaging and interacting with your fans, selling your film and merchandise yourself and with the help or your fans spreading the word. C) Getting enough demand for your film so you can approach theaters and have your film screened, resulting in "credible" reviews and more new fans. D) Being able to continue making films and earn a living through fans who finance and believe in your work. So what are the differences? WE NO LONGER NEED FESTIVALS Although film festivals are a great way to network, gain credibility and exposure, the truth is that it only really makes a difference for the BIG festivals such as Sundance, Cannes, Toronto etc. the problem with that is that these festivals rarely screen "true" independent films. They typically select small studio films with established directors, actors and budgets over a million dollars. The Sundance Film Festival announced that for 2010 it will feature NEXT, a new section featuring six to eight films selected for their innovative and original work in low- and no-budget filmmaking. Sure it sounds great and I remember getting messages from other filmmakers saying things like "This is a ray of hope!" but when we dig a little deeper you realize that Sundance doesn't actually clarify it's definition of "low budget". One filmmaker tried to get to the bottom of this question (which you can read about in more depth here) and what he discovered is that Sundance's "definition" of low-budget isn't determined by a dollar amount, it's determined by what that they feel is low budget. They use the film The American Astronaut as an example for what they are looking for and while it's true that The American Astronaut has no stars in it, it also turns out to be a 1 to 2 million dollar movie. Sundance has been giving us (the indie filmmakers) the illusion that they are our golden ticket, that we need to get into Sundance to have all of our indie prayers answered. But the truth is, Sundance needs us (and by us I mean our money) way more than we need them. Submission fees for the Sundance Film Festival range anywhere from $35-$100 depending on how early or late you submit and if your film is a short or feature length. As of September 1, the 2010 Sundance Film Festival had received over 4,964 submissions. The deadline for the fest was Sept. 25th so lets play it safe and say they received 5,000 submissions. This means that Sundance made somewhere between $175,000 to $500,000 in submissions alone and that's before they make money off of selling tickets for the films that the filmmakers don't see a dime of! And what percentage of those 5,000 submissions are by filmmakers with films made under $1,000,000? I couldn't find a percentage out there but I think it's safe to assume at least 80% and if you exclude short films it's probably much closer to 95%. So why do we fall for it? Why do we throw our money into something we have no chance of getting into? Other then credibility, film festivals were a way of hopefully securing distribution, getting press and getting paid well enough to at least pay off the film. So why do we continue going down this old path when most of the motivations behind submitting and attending festivals no longer exist? Why don't we just put our films online and bypass the film festivals altogether and let the people be the judge? Every film has an audience and we no longer need a festival or a distributor to find them. It used to be the festival seal that raised eyebrows and interest for a film; soon (and it's happening already) it will be the films that have been downloaded and streamed hundreds of thousands of times that will make festival seals completely irrelevant. WE NO LONGER NEED DISTRIBUTORS First I just want to say that this one could also be titled "Distributors No Longer Need Us" and the truth is that the relationship between independent filmmakers and independent distributors is no longer a model that works. Dozens of Independent film distributors are closing its doors, which at first might seem like the end of independent films. But the truth is that a lone filmmaker on a computer can reach just as many viewers if not more then any indie distributor ever could and they can do it more cheaply and effectively. As much as we'd all love to believe that our films are for "everyone" the truth is that independent films are a niche market and for an indie distributor to put all the time, money and effort into advertising, making film prints, making DVD's and then compete with all the multi-million dollar movies out there is a bet that usually doesn't end up in their favor. So now, less and less studios are deciding to take chances on indie films because it no longer makes sense for them financially. It also doesn't make sense financially for filmmakers to give their films over to distributors. If you haven't heard of Sita Sings the Blues, it's an animated musical about the director's personal interpretation of the Indian epic Ramayana, set to a jazz score by 1920's singer, Annette Hanshaw. You heard right, AN ANIMATED MUSICAL ABOUT THE DIRECTOR'S PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE INDIAN EPIC RAMAYANA, SET TO A JAZZ SCORE BY 1920'S SINGER, ANNETTE HENSHAW. I think this film should be an inspiration to every filmmaker out there because not only has this director (the talented Nina Paley) created the most unmarketable film ever created but she's made more money off of it then any distributor would ever pay for it. She said the biggest offer she got from a distributor was $20K which, not only was one quarter of what it cost her to make the film but it would also give the distributor all the rights to her film FOREVER. She turned down the offers, kept her rights and to date her film has made over $50K and she's done this all by herself and by giving her film away for free online on her website and by encouraging people to pirate it. To date her film has been seen over 100,000 times and has created enough demand online that it has played in theaters, won awards, got a review by Roger Ebert and she still retains all the rights to the film and can use it to help raise money for her next projects FOREVER. The filmmakers of the The Age of Stupid recently distributed/screened their film live, in 63 countries, in over 400 cinemas where over a million people saw their film at the exact same time! The filmmakers did all of this themselves (with the help of satellites) and have created a new global non-theatrical model that they are opening up to other filmmakers and that you can check out at www.indiescreenings.net. Arin Crumley and Kieran Masterton are also working on a way to get our films out into theaters called openindie. This tool will enable fans to request films they want to see and if enough demand for your film in one area, you can then use that information to negotiate and strike a deal with theaters in that area directly. No distributor, no middlemen just a direct link from the fans to the filmmaker. You can find out more about openindie at www.openindie.com I'm not trying to attack Festivals and Distributors or to paint them out as the bad guys. I'm just simply trying to point out that these old models no longer make sense for us and that innovative ways to get our films screened theatrically are being put into place right now by filmmakers who have proven these new methods work. So lets stop looking backwards and start looking forwards so we can focus on some of the bumpy roads we still have ahead of us. WE HAVE TO WORK HARDER Without distributors there are now two new crew positions for independent films that are just as crucial as the editor or cinematographer: the web designer (your store) and the media producer (your advertising). Ideally you would have two new people in these positions but I'm guessing for many indie filmmakers it will mean that the director will be wearing more hats. Without a website or someone promoting your film on blogs, social network sites etc., your film will hit a festival, most likely not get picked up and then vanish into obscurity. Films need a home where people can find out about them. Our content needs to be spread all over the internet so hopefully new fans might stumble upon your work. We need to engage and build relationships with our fans in what I feel is a completely new way: with creativity and honesty. Everyone's bullshit meters are so good now that anything out there that feels disingenuous is easy to spot a mile away. This is the exciting new challenge filmmakers face. What can we do to attract new people to our film without it seeming manipulative or just plain boring? Arin Crumley and Susan Buice made a series of podcasts promoting their feature film, Four Eyed Monsters. David Lynch sat on a lawn chair on the side of the road with a live cow to help promote his screenings of Inland Empire. Fellow New Breed filmmaker Todd Sklar has been partnering up with other filmmakers and then they road trip with their films across the U.S. and then holds screenings and party with their fans! The point is that there are no rules to how we do this and hopefully our ideas on how to engage and interact with our fans can be just as creative as our films. Filmmakers can no longer JUST think about the film. We have to think about our fans more than ever before and we really have take this seriously because...

OUR FANS ARE THE NEW STUDIOS Now I'm not saying that the studios are going to go away. I'm confident there will always be a demand for big studio movies but for the smaller indie films there is going to a monumental shift. I don't think it will be the studios that will no longer be interested in making smaller $1-$5 million dollar movies, I think it will be the filmmakers who will no longer see the point in going through a studio to make them. You can laugh if you want but I guarantee an independent filmmaker will make a million dollars off of their self-distributed film sometime in the next five years. Once this happens the term "independent filmmaker" will take on an entirely new meaning and filmmakers, for the first time, will no longer be dependent on anyone else but their fans. Once it's possible to make a million dollars yourself, why bother going through a system that will own the film, be the decision maker of whether your ideas are worth funding/are marketable, have the power to keep you out of the editing room or even shut you down completely. It's almost a miracle any time a new director makes something truly independent through a studio. For example, one of the boldest studio films by a first time director in the last ten years has to be Being John Malkovich by Spike Jonze. But after some research I found out that the studio had every intention of shutting down the entire film. Here's an exerpt from an amazing article from the New York Times.

“To capture the appropriate sense of gloom, Jonze and Acord lit the set mainly with ordinary household bulbs and completely dispensed with the Hollywood custom of using fill-lights on the actors’ faces. “The footage couldn’t have been more depressing,” Vince Landay, a producer on the film, told me. “And here PolyGram had been sold on this wacky comedy. So by the time they started reacting to the dailies — it’s handheld, there’s low light — they were freaking out.” After a few more disagreements, PolyGram threatened to shut down the production. Then, in the spring of 1998, the company merged with Universal. New executives came in. By the time anyone got around to checking on Jonze and his team, they’d already been editing for almost a year. Jonze had made the movie he wanted to make.”

The studios didn't believe in Spike Jonze's vision, they were simply too busy to shut him down. Of course he was an untested feature director with an extremely unique script but in reality no director is too big or too established to get the studio ax. Look at the recent shut down of Steven Soderburgh's Moneyball. Steven Soderburgh's films have earned 14 Oscar nominations; his films have won five and he's even won for Best Director. The star that was attached to Moneyball: Brad Pitt, the biggest film star on the entire planet! If an Oscar winning director isn't safe from making a film he wants to make, with the biggest star on the entire planet, then there is an obvious flaw in the system and no one is immune to it. But now lets look at another filmmaker from The New Breed: Mike Ambs. Through fans alone, Mike has raised almost $9,000 for post-production for his documentary through Kickstarter. Now the interesting thing is that this is Mike's FIRST documentary and although you might think $9,000 isn't a ton of money it's pretty impressive when you consider that these supporters don't really know if Mike can make a decent film. But he's reached out and gathered fans by posting trailers, video blogs, talked about themes and the inspiration for his film and because of all of that, he now has fans that believe in him, support him and eagerly await his film. Now what if Steven Soderburgh went on kickstarter to raise money for his film? What if Soderburgh and Brad Pitt skipped the studios and just asked their fans for $40 million dollars to make the film? Do you think they could pull it off? Are there enough people out there willing to support their vision on such a large scale? While I think Soderburgh could pull in a ton of money by engaging in his fans directly, I still doubt he could pull it off for such a large-scale project. So does this mean that fans aren't as powerful as the studios? Do you think Quentin Tarantino or Spike Jonze could raise enough through fans alone to make their films independently and at the same scale they are making films today? Unfortunately, today the answer is no but we've been working on a platform where any Independent filmmaker, established or not, could potentially earn millions.

THE POWER OF A DOLLAR Think of every film Soderburgh has made; then imagine if he (not the middle men) got one dollar every time someone watched any of his films online. It seams reasonable enough but as we all know, with today's technology and the ability to see any film for free, it's almost impossible to imagine actually getting a dollar for every stream or download. But what we are talking about here is a single dollar. One dollar per view to the filmmaker (not Amazon or Hulu) is the only thing that is preventing filmmakers from being able to make films of the same caliber (monetarily) as the studios. The latest film to blow up on the Internet is a $250,000 film called INK. The film was partly financed by the director refinancing his house to make the film and had no-name stars attached. No big film festival or distributor was interested in the film but recently the film got pirated on the internet, and in five days the film was downloaded over half a million times. The director told filmmaker magazine, “our revenue on the film has quadrupled in the last few days as a result of the exposure. It's still a fraction of what we need to be making to make it work” In short, a low-budget movie that has been seen over a half a million times still can’t even break even. Imagine how different the film industry would be if the filmmaker got one dollar off of every view. Not only would the film be paid off but the filmmaker could have enough to live comfortably and have a decent amount of money he could begin saving to fund his next film. This SINGLE DOLLAR changes this filmmaker from a starving artist who can barely afford to live in his house, to a successful filmmaker who is already pulling in enough profit to produce his next film. So how can we (the filmmakers) get a buck for every view? How can we compete against free? How can we make a living as filmmakers? I've been thinking long and hard about this question every day for over a year now and last month, my team and I stumbled upon a solution that could set us all free. Next up: We spill the beans on Fandependent Films and explain how it all works.

#Fandependent films #fandependent #distribution #ink #sundance #spike jonze #mike ambs #todd sklar #nina paley #sita sings the blues #The New Breed

14 notes · View notes