Hollywood and the script market

[Shawn Nelson]

I'm not sure if this makes me want to cry or pull my hair out
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090703/film_nm/us_asteroids;_ylt=Ai7aX26VRCP5V6GVAsT75PYDW7oF

So FOUR studios engaged in a bidding war to buy the rights to make a movie based on this
http://www.virtualities.com/Asteroids/Circa_79.jpg

Then read the article further, they are developing movies based on board games.

Wow.

Last year I went to a big pitch fest in LA and was astonished by how little the studios cared about receiving pitches. Sure, they were all "there", but they had all sent low level "barista" types who did not know story and seemed very disengaged by EVERYONE.

Fuck Hollywood.

Oh wait, nevermind! I just want Hollywood to like ME, grrrr

[Liam Hall]

Many studio movies these days are nothing more than two hour long infomercials that treat the audience with utter disdain. Their shameless commercialism knows no bounds and yet so many people fail to see it - how depressing is that!

[Zakaree Sandberg]

im gunna go to that pitch fest next time.. heres my pitch..
"ok.. so theres this circle... a magenta crayon, and a thumbtack" go for it

[Sander de Regt]

If a film based on a Disney Park Theme Ride (Pirates of the Caribbean) can work, I'm not saying in advance this will fail. But it is kind of a stretch.

[Martin Weiss]

there is no story line or fancy world-building mythology, so the studio would be creating a plot from scratch

And over that they start a bidding war???

[A. Bastaki]

im gunna go to that pitch fest next time.. heres my pitch..
"ok.. so theres this circle... a magenta crayon, and a thumbtack" go for it

Laughing my ass off.. hahahaha

[Brian D. Goff]

I'm not sure if this makes me want to cry or pull my hair out
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090703/film_nm/us_asteroids;_ylt=Ai7aX26VRCP5V6GVAsT75PYDW7oF

So FOUR studios engaged in a bidding war to buy the rights to make a movie based on this
http://www.virtualities.com/Asteroids/Circa_79.jpg

Then read the article further, they are developing movies based on board games.

Wow.

Last year I went to a big pitch fest in LA and was astonished by how little the studios cared about receiving pitches. Sure, they were all "there", but they had all sent low level "barista" types who did not know story and seemed very disengaged by EVERYONE.

Fuck Hollywood.

Oh wait, nevermind! I just want Hollywood to like ME, grrrr

But WTF are they bidding for - just the name rights?

[Cüneyt Kaya]

they are doing the uwe boll formula here.


take a game with a fan base (nostalgia)
cgi/sfi Fi
not complicated
one or two known actors
=

gross around 500 000 000


=

we do it...


guess there will be


captain future
saber raider
mech warrior
resistance


soon

my opinion:

wordless

[Liam Hall]

they are doing the uwe boll formula here.


take a game with a fan base (nostalgia)
cgi/sfi Fi
not complicated
one or two known actors
=

gross around 500 000 000


=

we do it...
Your formula is wrong. It should be:

take a game/toy/ride with a fan base
cgi/sfi Fi
not complicated
one or two known actors

+

$200,000,000 on marketing

=

gross around 500 000 000


=

we do it...

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Your formula is wrong. It should be:

take a game/toy/ride with a fan base
cgi/sfi Fi
not complicated
one or two known actors

+

$200,000,000 on marketing

=

gross around 500 000 000


=

we do it...

yes you are right.


hope gi joe will loose a hundred million, than this can be finished really quick :)

[Pawel Achtel]

Welcome to the "entertainment" industry. Things like talent, good idea or hard work will get you nowhere here. Who you talk to and sleep with are the only things that matter, unfortunately.

[Andrew Walker]

Come-on Shawn, don't be so discouraged. I know its ridiculous how these things happen. But its because the idiots running the studios nowadays don't care about something being creative or a new idea. They just want to squeeze as much money out of the public as they can before the movie goers figure out that the movie is crap. Granted sometimes they can make something pretty entertaining with the right string of writers. But that is few and far between.

[Eren Ozkural]

I have a fanstastic idea for IP they should buy for a film franchise:

http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/html/Polar/images/circle.jpg

You know...for kids!

[Cüneyt Kaya]

come to europe :)

one zero or two zeros less in the budget, but here a director is an auteur

[Cüneyt Kaya]

i am still waiting for a remake of

biker chicks in zombie town with megan fox and lindsay lohan

[Roberto Lequeux]

u hater... Asteroids is the original pimp of video games :)

[Danish P.V.]

I`m eagerly awaiting this game to be turned into a movie: http://theimpactfactor.com/images/RockPaperScissors.jpg

[Pawel Achtel]

I`m eagerly awaiting this game to be turned into a movie: http://theimpactfactor.com/images/RockPaperScissors.jpg

hahaha, epic material. Mind you it would still be far more engaging story than most of the films made these days :smilielol5:

[Jonathan Stevenson]

This story is just hot off the wire. What. The. Fuck.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=56857

View Master. YES, View Master, the little red thing that you put a circular set of slides into and flick the little lever with your thumb. YES, I almost cried just as bad as when I read the Asteroids story.

""Fringe" co-producer/writer Brad Caleb Kane will be writing a movie based on the View-Master toy, which first came on the market in 1939.

He announced on his Twitter account that after he's done penning the sci-fi action-adventure Uprising for director Wolfgang Petersen and Columbia Pictures, he will take on the project for DreamWorks Pictures."

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i254/jonny168/viewmastermovie.jpg

[Imran Farouk]

this is really starting to annoy me...I'm looking for the quality that the old films use to have...Godfather, Goodfellas, Starwars (old ones) and other such films that people today still find fun to watch...Pulp Fiction...

It just seems to be a downward spiral for the industry though....

which makes me wonder...

Whens this web 2.0 crap gonna hit 3.0?

When is it possible for Indie film makers to hit the level of Hollywood style films (for me I can still tell the difference between a independent film and a studio one...) and place it somewhere, for maximum audience exposure immediately without incurring the middle party costs and so forth...(cost of producing dvds etc. and distrubting)...

Because right now...taking a game that has NO story line to it and piecing something together from that?bloody well just buy a script thats been made from scratch. Better yet work on making the current films that have been so crud from video games better...DOOM is a prime example..that was utter rubbish, so was D.O.A and pretty much every other video game film thats existed.

Just DONT understand this damn strategy of quick cash rather then quick LONG sustained cash flow...I'm sure Hollywood is still making money off the classics...why not make NEW classics...ones that will last as long as the old ones!

[Miltos Pilalitos]

As long as Hollywood can also give birth to movies like The curious case of Benjamin Button they can spent their money to whatever crap they want.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

As long as Hollywood can also give birth to movies like The curious case of Benjamin Button they can spent their money to whatever crap they want.

the movie was financed because of the fincher-pitt-blanchet combo

cant remember one of the combo did shoot shit before.

this movie would have been made without tf2 too, i guess :)

[Michael Hastings]

this is really starting to annoy me...I'm looking for the quality that the old films use to have...Godfather, Goodfellas, Starwars (old ones) and other such films that people today still find fun to watch...Pulp Fiction...

It just seems to be a downward spiral for the industry though....

which makes me wonder...

Whens this web 2.0 crap gonna hit 3.0?

When is it possible for Indie film makers to hit the level of Hollywood style films (for me I can still tell the difference between a independent film and a studio one...) and place it somewhere, for maximum audience exposure immediately without incurring the middle party costs and so forth...(cost of producing dvds etc. and distrubting)...

Because right now...taking a game that has NO story line to it and piecing something together from that?bloody well just buy a script thats been made from scratch. Better yet work on making the current films that have been so crud from video games better...DOOM is a prime example..that was utter rubbish, so was D.O.A and pretty much every other video game film thats existed.

Just DONT understand this damn strategy of quick cash rather then quick LONG sustained cash flow...I'm sure Hollywood is still making money off the classics...why not make NEW classics...ones that will last as long as the old ones!

It's all about the combination marketing/merchandising "hooks". They can run around to the zillion TV talk shows, newspapers, blogs, etc. and get some press - after all even here on REDUSER we are talking about the upcoming "Asteroids" and Viewmaster movies. So they get on the Today show and Matt Lauer can say "I remember when I used to play with the Viewmaster (or Asteroids or whatever) and it was really cool and now they are making a movie..." So with that they get lots of free advertising and that plus their movie marketing budget they get multiple income streams: from the tickets, DVDs, cable, but they also get to rejuvenate an old product and get money from the product sales as well. They feel better hyping the "synergy" than anything real. Without the movie hype they could never afford to advertise those products, and without the classic product tie-in nobody would notice.

As far as making classics with smaller but long term income streams, well our financial, legal, political, and social structures are so corrupted that there is very little REAL push for long term thinking/acting.

[Miltos Pilalitos]

this movie would have been made without tf2 too, i guess :)

tf2? As in Team Fortress 2?

[Graeme Nattress]

Given in movies of video games, they always change the plot.... And given that the plot of Asteroids is Asteroids and a space-ship.... They'll probably change it to hemorrhoids and a surgeon....

Graeme

[Doylemark]

if they make the film, I hope that little space ship buzzes through the screen periodically

[Liam Hall]

Maybe someone should write a witty and engaging script based around all of the stuff we used to play with as kids. Maybe the stuff could come to life and get involved in a series of fun adventures.

It would make a nice animation and there must be huge scope for a video game and for loads of other stuff they could make money out of. In fact, I think they should call it "Stuff".

[Bruce Allen]

I'm still waiting to see if Monopoly: The Movie is a joke or not... directed by Ridley Scott ?!?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Mark L. Pederson]

The obvious ROI here is a merchandising deal with A NEW VERSION of the video game. It's about the "brand" - and the viral marketing potential.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

guess there will be
[...]
mech warrior
[...]

Battling Royal families? Betrayal? Giant mechs? Yes please. They should just do Macbeth with mechs.

some cheesy mechwarrior footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxfKZZ4RNng&feature=related

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Battling Royal families? Betrayal? Giant mechs? Yes please. They should just do Macbeth with mechs.

some cheesy mechwarrior footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxfKZZ4RNng&feature=related




......hhhhmmmm......confession here.....



i play battletech since i am 12 years...aidan pride, natasha kerensky, phelan kell, justin xiang allard.....

clans, inner sphere, yorinaga vs. morgan

phantom mech modus...

atlas, maraudeur, banshee S, warhammer, masakari, daishi, thor, mad cat....


i was a board gamer

[Jeff Kilgroe]

They'll probably change it to hemorrhoids and a surgeon....

ASSteroids!

[Shawn Nelson]

ASSteroids!

(sigh), as long as Megan Fox is in it

[Shawn Nelson]

Come-on Shawn, don't be so discouraged. I know its ridiculous how these things happen. But its because the idiots running the studios nowadays don't care about something being creative or a new idea. They just want to squeeze as much money out of the public as they can before the movie goers figure out that the movie is crap. Granted sometimes they can make something pretty entertaining with the right string of writers. But that is few and far between.

So what I wonder is this, if they are so stupid then why doesn't the free market correct itself?
:anti-old:

[Cüneyt Kaya]

So what I wonder is this, if they are so stupid then why doesn't the free market correct itself?
:anti-old:

hhm they know what the masses want?

[Mark Phelan]

If a film based on a Disney Park Theme Ride (Pirates of the Caribbean) can work, I'm not saying in advance this will fail. But it is kind of a stretch.

Just holding out for "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride", now there's an instant classic.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Just holding out for "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride", now there's an instant classic.

Isn't that just Wind in the Willows?

Also:
http://www.amazon.com/Toads-Wild-Ride-Roger-Ashton-Griffiths/dp/B0000DZTIM

[rod bradley]

So what I wonder is this, if they are so stupid then why doesn't the free market correct itself?


Ahh, what free market?

[DRappazzo]

The free market disappeared years ago in this country. It seems fairly obvious to me, as a industry outsider who would love to be an insider, that the films that get the most marketing are the ones that generate the most dollars. There are exceptions of course, but in a overall sense its seems true. The public is told what to like and what to spend their money on.
The best thing any of us can do, is learn the system, become a part of the system and then change the system from the inside.
Now if I could only figure out how to do that.

[Mark Phelan]

Isn't that just Wind in the Willows?

Also:
http://www.amazon.com/Toads-Wild-Ride-Roger-Ashton-Griffiths/dp/B0000DZTIM

Well there you are. I had no idea they actually DID make a movie of it, Mr. Toad that is, not "Wind in the Willows". What rock have I been sleeping under?

[Jim Hoffman]

Oh... I just had a flashback to the Mario Brothers Movie....

Shiver..... walk it off .... walk it off...

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The free market disappeared years ago in this country. It seems fairly obvious to me, as a industry outsider who would love to be an insider, that the films that get the most marketing are the ones that generate the most dollars. There are exceptions of course, but in a overall sense its seems true. The public is told what to like and what to spend their money on.
The best thing any of us can do, is learn the system, become a part of the system and then change the system from the inside.
Now if I could only figure out how to do that.

If that were true then movies would never flop.

Studios are just generally pretty good at actually figuring out what the market wants.

And we still get a ton of movies like Michael Clayton, The Last King of Scotland, Doubt etc... There is certainly no shortage of relatively high profile dramas.

But a movie like Doubt isn't going to appeal to nearly as large of an audience as something like Spiderman. The amount of time I'm in the "mood" for a serious drama is far less than the time I'm in the "mood" to see Starship Troopers. I have often said "Wow that's one of the best movies I've ever seen and I'll probably never want to watch it again." Meanwhile I can put Starship Troopers or Arrested Development on as my TV's screensaver.

No reason to market a movie to the mass audience which will have no interest in seeing it. No amount of marketing can make The Last King of Scotland into a tentpole picture.

[Alex MacLean]

story? apparently studios don't know what that is...

[Liam Hall]

Studios are just generally pretty good at actually figuring out what the market wants.

Er, no. They are very good at telling the market what it wants. They are dealing with a loaded pack.


And we still get a ton of movies like Michael Clayton, The Last King of Scotland, Doubt etc...
Not exactly made in Hollywood.


There is certainly no shortage of relatively high profile dramas.

Quite the opposite is true. Go check the box-office figures of this year and compare with 1972, 1954 19 whatever...


But a movie like Doubt isn't going to appeal to nearly as large of an audience as something like Spiderman. The amount of time I'm in the "mood" for a serious drama is far less than the time I'm in the "mood" to see Starship Troopers. I have often said "Wow that's one of the best movies I've ever seen and I'll probably never want to watch it again." Meanwhile I can put Starship Troopers or Arrested Development on as my TV's screensaver.

Does size matter? Why judge a movie by box-office take alone? Anyhow, it's not about serious drama or low brow drama, it's about quality drama and quality entertainment, it's about thinking for yourself and not being told what to think and how to think.

You can have quality popcorn flicks as much as deep emotional drama - they all have a place. Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man, Star Trek and X-Men are all examples of franchise movies that work as movies; I can give you a longer list of franchise movies that don't work quite so well.

What should be banished from the cinema are these two and half half hour infomercials that sell games, burgers and all the other useless shit that no-one needs.


No reason to market a movie to the mass audience which will have no interest in seeing it. No amount of marketing can make The Last King of Scotland into a tentpole picture.

You are not understanding how marketing works or why filmmakers make movies like The Last King of Scotland.

[DRappazzo]

If that were true then movies would never flop.

Studios are just generally pretty good at actually figuring out what the market wants.

And we still get a ton of movies like Michael Clayton, The Last King of Scotland, Doubt etc... There is certainly no shortage of relatively high profile dramas.

But a movie like Doubt isn't going to appeal to nearly as large of an audience as something like Spiderman. The amount of time I'm in the "mood" for a serious drama is far less than the time I'm in the "mood" to see Starship Troopers. I have often said "Wow that's one of the best movies I've ever seen and I'll probably never want to watch it again." Meanwhile I can put Starship Troopers or Arrested Development on as my TV's screensaver.

No reason to market a movie to the mass audience which will have no interest in seeing it. No amount of marketing can make The Last King of Scotland into a tentpole picture.

I appreciate your point of view, even though I do happen to disagree. I do think there is an equal place in the market place of films for both large budget "popcorn" films as well as lower budget more serious tone films. But when a film has a budget that is dwarfed by the amount spent marketing a larger film, it has no chance of being widely seen by the movie going public. Simply because they don't know to look for it, or because it does not play at any of the chain theaters in their area.
There are of course exceptions to everything I am writing here, just as I pointed out in my above post. But in the larger sense I do believe this too be the state of the film industry as or right now.
But, the bright side of this is that smaller films that receive great word of mouth have the possibility of being seen and making a larger return on their investment in the home dvd market. That is if they are lucky enough to get the proper release and distribution. Long story short, I think that if every film that gets made where given an equal chance to succeed we would have a much better idea of what the public really wants.
But for now, we will have to settle for large budget, cgi heavy, franchise films that sell our children more toys, happy meals and video games.
I would like to also say that given how hard it is to get any film financed and made, I have nothing but respect for all of them, whether I think they are good or not.

Gavin, btw: Thats the first time any of my posts have been quoted, so thank you, it made my day.

[Joe G.]

Tic is an unstoppable, high speed international assassin.

Tac is a hot supermodel undercover spy with bionic breasts.

The Evil Dr. Toe lures both of them into his diabolical scheme. They will each face their ultimate diagonal nightmare.

TIC-TAC-TOE

2-D Will Never Be The Same (TM)

[Casey Green]

Can't wait for Asteroids 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Clint Johnson]

In re the studio idea bankruptcy; a project that already has mindspace makes for an easier sale because it comes with the heavy lifting part of the marketing already taken care of.

Most folk's complaint about big Hollywood blockbusters (and blockbuster wannabes) is because they are bombarded with the summer tentpole promotion and feel resentment that it is diverting resources and attention from their favourite little indie gem. Just relax people. There is no way that any of that money would have gone to said indie gem. A $100 million Transformer 2 promotional would be a stupid waste of time and money for a film that could never ever make more than $20 million at the box office. The small indie films do as well as they can possible do just by word of mouth- everyone who would really want to see these types of films already keeps their ear to the ground. No amount of money spent on honest promotion could convince the average 17 year old male that they should go see 'The Beaches of Agnes' rather than 'District 9'... or even (ugh) 'Asteroids'

Unless it is an epic or a big action film, I have no interest in seeing it in the theatre. There is absolutely no reason I can see for watching a low budget serious film on the big screen. The only reason to go through the bother of going to the cinema is for that big screen that towers above you and stretches out to the edge of your vision- and that is filled with spectacular images and/or bigger than life action.

The more intimate venue of a 50 inch HDTV suits the low budget and intimate drama far better than the 50 foot screen.

That said, the only place that Asteroids belongs is on a Quadrascan X-Y cathode ray tube.

[Liam Hall]

In re the studio idea bankruptcy; a project that already has mindspace makes for an easier sale because it comes with the heavy lifting part of the marketing already taken care of.

Most folk's complaint about big Hollywood blockbusters (and blockbuster wannabes) is because they are bombarded with the summer tentpole promotion and feel resentment that it is diverting resources and attention from their favourite little indie gem. Just relax people. There is no way that any of that money would have gone to said indie gem. A $100 million Transformer 2 promotional would be a stupid waste of time and money for a film that could never ever make more than $20 million at the box office. The small indie films do as well as they can possible do just by word of mouth- everyone who would really want to see these types of films already keeps their ear to the ground. No amount of money spent on honest promotion could convince the average 17 year old male that they should go see 'The Beaches of Agnes' rather than 'District 9'... or even (ugh) 'Asteroids'

Unless it is an epic or a big action film, I have no interest in seeing it in the theatre. There is absolutely no reason I can see for watching a low budget serious film on the big screen. The only reason to go through the bother of going to the cinema is for that big screen that towers above you and stretches out to the edge of your vision- and that is filled with spectacular images and/or bigger than life action.

Clint, it's not about low-budget versus large-budget or indie film versus summer blockbuster - there is a place for all types of movie at the cinema. People get annoyed because films get their green light solely due to a marketing plan that ticks all the right boxes and not because the script looks good or talented actors and technicians will be making it.

I also disagree that only blockbusters work on the big screen and think it would be a very sad day indeed if that is all you could watch at your local cinema.

I do agree with you that projects that have already found success in another form, be it a book, a game or a TV show have a better chance of being made into a movie. That just shoes how lazy and gutless cinema executives are these days.

[RikiButland]

Hear Hear Liam I totally agree

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Gutless? Sure. But considering how many indie films turn out to be unwatchable awful messes... pretty understandable. If they turn out good they can spend a few million and market/distribute them ala Fox Searchlight.

And I really don't know that Hollywood needs to get involved. When you're talking about movies like Slumdog with a budget of $15m you're pretty safely into private investor territory (and an extremely risky investment).

And again. Hollywood can't force a movie to be popular. If Hollywood could force a movie to be popular then they would never lose money on movies.

I really don't see the problem. I see a lot of really great movies released and marketed every year. And I don't think the numbers have really changed except to increase in the last 100 years.

[Clint Johnson]

Clint, it's not about low-budget versus large-budget or indie film versus summer blockbuster - there is a place for all types of movie at the cinema. People get annoyed because films get their green light solely due to a marketing plan that ticks all the right boxes and not because the script looks good or talented actors and technicians will be making it.

I also disagree that only blockbusters work on the big screen and think it would be a very sad day indeed if that is all you could watch at your local cinema.

I do agree with you that projects that have already found success in another form, be it a book, a game or a TV show have a better chance of being made into a movie. That just shoes how lazy and gutless cinema executives are these days.

I actually do think that it is far more a knee jerk reaction by some people against the egalitarian nature of the summer blockbuster. The most vociferous seem to have a visceral aversion to the grossly popular more so than a dislike of the banal and insipid.

As for the studio executives being lazy and gutless, put yourself in their shoes. You have the responsibility of investing hundreds of millions of dollars. The last 20 indie films that you know of lost money or barely broke even- beside which it takes almost as much effort to produce a $10 million serious drama as it does a $100 million tent pole. With an established intellectual property and another $100 million in marketing you actually have a shot at making enough money on one in every four or five to bank money and cover the losses of the others. With a stable of serious little dramas you are guaranteed to lose the money that was entrusted to you.

That explains Iron Man (which I enjoyed by the way) but I don't think there is a rational explanation for Asteroids... maybe I should see if the movie rights for "Etch A Sketch" are available? Pitch it as a lovable collection of anthropomorphic spider 3d CGI characters are lured into a 2D animated world of Etch A Sketch where they learn a valuable lesson about co-operation and that friends and family are what really matter? I'm gonna call my agent and see about getting a bidding war between Warners, Fox and Dreamworks!

Seriously, I see the big screen as a larger than life experience that is just better suited for a larger than life movie. The more intimate "life sized" 50 to 100 inch screen puts the drama on a more even footing with the action.

From a business perspective, the only reason to put these small films into traditional theatres is contractual obligation or for Academy consideration. By their very nature they are niche films with a smaller audience that rarely warrants the cost and effort to put them up on the big screens.

If we want a middle ground, the content creators need to lower their expectations and embrace small scale digital distribution using variations on mobmov or micro-cinema with consumer grade equipment and more intimate venues.

I think that the system should break down into a more layered delivery with traditional cinema carrying the "larger" films that have a reasonable expectation of at least breaking even when they open on 500 plus screens- and the "smaller" films going out to an ad hoc network of 20-30 seat micro-cinemas in art galleries, community centres and the back rooms of coffee shops, book stores and projected onto the exterior of your local Wal-Mart.

I would suggest keeping it simple with something in the range of $100 for a one time PPR rather than the hassle of tracking individual ticket sales. Let the venue decide if they are going to; sell tickets, cover the cost as a public service or use it as a loss leader to get people into the venue to buy coffee and doughnuts.

There is a void out there for a Web 2.0 setup to service this need for a place where film makers and film presenters can find each other. The legalities are messed up just enough that it isn't worth the film makers investment in time to learn but clear enough for a near automated online service that charges a reasonable 2 to 5%. If I were setting this up I'd also look to creating additional cost services like getting a rating from jurisdictions where it is mandatory, pre-roll endorsements (I'd try and institute a rather short 15 second or less rule to keep it from becoming obnoxiously intrusive) and setting up a indie "coming attractions" pre-roll with three or four previews.

It'd be great if someone with the time and money would register something like "CinemaEverywhere.com" and build out this system. It has the potential for a healthy ROI and could give indie films a home.

If the film maker can get a couple thousand showings it would get them $200,000 ($190,000 after the CinemaEverywhere.com fee) from public performances- and it would allow people to see it on a middle ground 15 to 20 foot screen. Word of mouth leading to repeated showing over the years could mean a workable business model for the <$2 million feature once second and third window revenue is factored in.

Hell, get enough of these micro-cinemas with multiple presentations and that $5 to $10 million film might fall into viability. With that kind of money you are getting production values and a cast that doesn't scream indie limitations but which right now is box office death 99.999% of the time.

[Ace]

I'm not supposed to share this.. But what the hell, I'm no longer tied the ND..

http://www.dlshs.net/pong_the_movie.jpg

[Joe G.]

"CinemaEverywhere.com"

Perhaps a franchise that recruits coffee houses, bars, restaurants across the country to start "movie nights?"

[Anson Fogel]

I love that this thread moved from the intractable chicken/hollyood versus egg/consumer debate, to SOLUTIONS. Rare that we actually talk about what we can DO rather than what.

The prior posters are dead on - the combination of advances in digital projection and production, as well as distribution, mean a significant opportunity to get small movies shown on small-mid screens in a way that can move money around nicely and get us the ability to go SEE small movies in a social setting at high quality.

BluRay>HDMI>Sony VPL200 SXRD 1080 projected onto a 10' wide screen looks stunning, in a dark space, better than all but the best commerical 35mm theaters/prints. Good 7.1 sound is not expensive. Small filmmakers can shoot RED, handle post and author bluray well.

So where is the "middle" part? I live in a small community - Aspen and the RF Valley on CO, with a vibrant film loving community and some great local venues that show small films, but more small venues, or a different dist model for the small venus already showing small films, would open up significant opportunity. The venues that show films now to the film loving audience - not the 17 year old boys - would show MORE films, if they could easily get them to show and vet them, and if their up front cost was low.

The long tail, I believe they called the trend...specilization in markets enabled by better cheaper tools across the supply chain.

Love the thread - you're onto something!

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

I think that the system should break down into a more layered delivery with traditional cinema carrying the "larger" films that have a reasonable expectation of at least breaking even when they open on 500 plus screens- and the "smaller" films going out to an ad hoc network of 20-30 seat micro-cinemas in art galleries, community centres and the back rooms of coffee shops, book stores and projected onto the exterior of your local Wal-Mart.

Clint I must say I've really enjoyed reading your ideas on this.

But although you make a lot of sense, I can't see this working out.

My understanding of the history of the cinema industry is that it has become increasingly homogenised over the past three or four decades. Previously there was, as you've proposed, a multi-tiered or layered system of distribution that reflected different 'grades' of content, your big studio films, the cheaper b-movie stuff, the drive-in, grindhouse, 'blue' movie markets etc. But over time these weaker subspecies have become extinct and now most 'indie' films that you see in a theatre are being distributed by a handful of major independent distributors.

To me, and yes it is a gross over-simplification, homogenisation of content and distribution just seems to be the general trend in entertainment in the west. Personally I can't imagine many people would be brave enough to invest capital in creating a whole new infrastructure for distributing independent films.

Then again, Europe does have a history of treating cinema as much more than just mindless entertainment, and perhaps the first pioneers will be found there.

However I don't know if it would necessarily be a good thing to take smaller, more independent films out of the theatres and place them in technically inferior, ad hoc pretend-theatres in art galleries and community centres. Imagine how much MORE stigma would be attached to "art" or "indie" films were they to make such a shift?!

I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch. It gives all of the content equal legitimacy.

Personally I'm not very comfortable with horse shit like Transformers, G.I. Joe or Asteroids attaining an implicit superiority that better theatres will confer.

[Shawn Nelson]

I'm not supposed to share this.. But what the hell, I'm no longer tied the ND..

http://www.dlshs.net/pong_the_movie.jpg

Lol, that is AWESOME!

(assuming it's a joke...)

[David Rasberry]

There used to be a vibrant 16mm rental / distribution market for college, museum, art house, coffee shop type venues back in the 60's and 70's. With the ever dropping cost of high quality digital projectors and hopefully the release of Red Ray players not too far off, a similar market could play a much more prominent role for all kinds of films in the future.
I programmed film series for the local art museum for a few years, most of the local art house, musem, school venues seated at least 75 people, some over 200. The art museum auditorium seated 250 and had a 30' wide Cinemascope format screen. We had anamorphic lenses for the 16mm projector too, but also ran 3 screen 35mm educational slide show presntations.
My favorite show was a film tour by Les Blank. He was doing a cultural documentary series on food. We showed the one on New Orleans Creole and Cajun cooking in "SmellAround". Les and I prepared some of the dishes featured in the film ahead of time and had them simmering on a buffet table in the back of the theater. At the end of the film everybody got to sample the food.

[David Rasberry]

However I don't know if it would necessarily be a good thing to take smaller, more independent films out of the theatres and place them in technically inferior, ad hoc pretend-theatres in art galleries and community centres. Imagine how much MORE stigma would be attached to "art" or "indie" films were they to make such a shift?!

I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch. It gives all of the content equal legitimacy.

Personally I'm not very comfortable with horse shit like Transformers, G.I. Joe or Asteroids attaining an implicit superiority that better theatres will confer

In my area we have 50 plus screens across a half dozen large chain multiplexes all running the same 8 top box office releases at the same time. Occasionally they might venture one screen for a particularly popular or well promoted indie film, but most of the time its just derivative corporate Hollywood crap. I wish they would give us more choices.

Mature adults don't go to the movies often because corporate Hollywood mostly makes movies for young people because mature adults don't go to the movies.

[Joe G.]

"...more small venues, or a different dist model for the small venus already showing small films, would open up significant opportunity."

The ability to show all sorts of content digitally, and not have to run the same film over and over all day for a week will help somewhat (maybe).

The lowering price of projection systems and audio to create a profitable smaller venue will definitely help.

The question is: why would they choose some little movie they never heard of instead of re-running Jurassic Park or Star Wars, or things that have been marketed everywhere?

I think more choices will help. But, the public already has the choice to just stay home and watch whatever, on their own set. To want to watch something in public, you need a reason.

Bigger screen?
Alcohol and food?
Meeting people?
Clubs?
Education?
Hot bikini babe ushers?

I like the idea of places with liquor licenses showing films, as you can make a date out of it. Not saying they'll want to see YOUR film on their date, but it's possible.

I've been considering what it would take to create a small "art house" theater here in my town. Probably not a good business venture -- unless there's a Monster Truck Channel I can subscribe to.


"I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch..."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Craig Parkes]

In New Zealand, which I think has a fairly unique movie going climate, the key demographic for small cinemas is older women.

All these cinemas offer high end cafe/restaurant facilities, almost all have alcohol licenses, they offer nice seats and they play art house movies that do not compete for the teenage audience at all.

They play matinee and evening films and do very well from them. They are a place where older, educated women and men whose children are now adult go to enjoy themselves and have a chat before and after as well as some wine and nice food.

I am SURE that in the right cities in other countries, a well setup chain of specialist theaters set up to target this audience SPECIFICALLY could do quite well. You would need a certain level of population density of the right communities and you would need to STRINGENTLY cater to this market and advertise the whole concept (it sort of evolved naturally here out of traditional art house, I think in other countries marketing the idea of going to the cinema to older women may be a bit of a struggle at first but I think it could do very well.)

Make the movie going experience an awesome one, with screening times and movies that cater to this demographic, and I imagine in most countries you will find repeat custom with very little advertising cost - it's mostly in word of mouth and generating what would be to this audience a must have repeat experience.

Main stream multiplexes don't and can't offer this, they cater to wide.

In this example, if teenagers EVER show up to your theater without being accompanied by a parent or grandparent, then you'd be doing something very wrong.

[Liam Hall]

I actually do think that it is far more a knee jerk reaction by some people against the egalitarian nature of the summer blockbuster. The most vociferous seem to have a visceral aversion to the grossly popular more so than a dislike of the banal and insipid.

Blockbusters aren't egalitarian, quite the opposite. That's the point. Yes, there are some people who'll moan about any successful picture, not me I like all kinds of movie.



As for the studio executives being lazy and gutless, put yourself in their shoes. You have the responsibility of investing hundreds of millions of dollars. The last 20 indie films that you know of lost money or barely broke...

Once again, mine is not an argument about blockbuster versus indie, it's about good practice versus bad.

There are many blockbusters that have good scripts, good storytelling and are made with talented people who understand cinema and there are even more indie films that are made with bad scripts, bad story telling and talentless people.


Seriously, I see the big screen as a larger than life experience that is just better suited for a larger than life movie. The more intimate "life sized" 50 to 100 inch screen puts the drama on a more even footing with the action.

Big bang equals big screen; I know what you are getting at, but for me it would be a terrible shame if the only films available to watch at the cinema were two-hour infomercials that sell games, toys and burgers. Cinema can do a hell of lot more.


From a business perspective, the only reason to put these small films into traditional theatres is contractual obligation or for Academy consideration. By their very nature they are niche films with a smaller audience that rarely warrants the cost and effort to put them up on the big screens.

It's funny because before Jaws came along, that's exactly how cinema worked. Now we have far less choice and often no choice at all.


If we want a middle ground, the content creators need to lower their expectations and embrace small scale digital distribution using variations on mobmov or micro-cinema with consumer grade equipment and more intimate venues.

So, if we don't like Asteroids we accept a low grade option? What kind of rationale is that?


I think that the system should break down into a more layered delivery with traditional cinema carrying the "larger" films that have a reasonable expectation of at least breaking even when they open on 500 plus screens- and the "smaller" films going out to an ad hoc network of 20-30 seat micro-cinemas in art galleries, community centres and the back rooms of coffee shops, book stores and projected onto the exterior of your local Wal-Mart.

Too funny, can you imagine watching Cinema Paradiso in Starbucks? There are multiplexes everywhere, why not use the distribution network that already exists? I'll tell you why, because the studios are monopolizing the market - less choice equals a better chance for them to make their money. They have little incentive to make a great film, but a big incentive to make a good marketing campaign.

I agree, that new technology has a role to play, as it has already impacted on the music industry and it will certainly be interesting to see how that plays out. But lets not confuse that with the short-sighted business practices that are slowly killing cinema.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

"I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch..."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Hmmmm, I have a feeling you know exactly what I'm talking about, or moreover you know exactly the point I'm making but are just being melodramatic to make your own point.

It's true I don't know what the multiplexes are like in the states, all I can say is in my own part of the world it's not tooo bad. Yes, the multiplexes are heavily weighted towards the latest hollywood horse shit, but there are plenty of exceptions.

The main point I want to make is quite simple: I don't think there should be any widening of the divide between 'mainstream' and 'arthouse'. I think it's a real shame that this determines how films are marketed and distributed. Because, as I'm sure a lot of people here agree, both mainstream and arthouse have about an equal ratio of shit-to-gold.

I just feel that to start moving the arthouse or 'indie' films into art galleries, community centres, coffee shops etc. would further feed into this idea that films should be sharply classified by their content, purpose etc.

I prefer things the way they are now, because I know - having worked as a projectionist in both mainstream cinemas and "the largest arthouse cinema in the southern hemisphere" - that it doesn't make much financial sense for cinemas to try to cater to all tastes, there has to be a degree of specialisation. I just don't really want to see these specialisation go further and create and even greater divide between mainstream and arthouse.

[David Rasberry]

The main point I want to make is quite simple: I don't think there should be any widening of the divide between 'mainstream' and 'arthouse'. I think it's a real shame that this determines how films are marketed and distributed. Because, as I'm sure a lot of people here agree, both mainstream and arthouse have about an equal ratio of shit-to-gold.
I just feel that to start moving the arthouse or 'indie' films into art galleries, community centres, coffee shops etc. would further feed into this idea that films should be sharply classified by their content, purpose etc.

I agree with you in principle, but the fact is these divisions already exist, at least here in the States. For most independent films there is very little market opportunity and the barriers to mainstream theatrical distribution are high. A vibrant sophisticated small venue market would give a lot of films that don't get a chance now a shot at developing an audience, and returning their costs. potentially moving to major distribution if the response is favorable.
There is always YouTube, but how are you going to make a buck on that? Cable and satellite TV in the US is mostly controlled by the same 5 or 6 media conglomerates that also control theatrical distribution. The path to potentially broad audiences is through a soda straw. We need more straws.

[Erik Widding]

I have a fanstastic idea for IP they should buy for a film franchise:

http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/html/Polar/images/circle.jpg

You know...for kids!

Hadn't thought about that movie in awhile. Simple idea evolves into a great story.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHY8NKj3RKs

Minesweeper the movie.

[Liam Hall]

"It: the movie"

They made "Them", so why not?

[Joe G.]

"It's true I don't know what the multiplexes are like in the states, all I can say is in my own part of the world it's not tooo bad."

Cities have more diversity in films, venues.

Small towns and rural are at the mercy of a couple of chains that serve up glittering, explosive sewage on tap.

The "Multiplexes" have the same 8 movies, the "top 8" and that's it. If you're not in the "top 8" or perhaps 10-12, depending on the area, then you don't have a chance to get seen.

I would have to travel more than 200 miles to find an "art house."

[Clint Johnson]

To me, and yes it is a gross over-simplification, homogenisation of content and distribution just seems to be the general trend in entertainment in the west. Personally I can't imagine many people would be brave enough to invest capital in creating a whole new infrastructure for distributing independent films.

The beauty of this is that the capital outlay is up to you.

1) If you have the money and want to take the movies to the people, you could spend about $12,000 for a Sharp XG-P560W that can blast out 5200 lumens onto a convenient exterior wall. It isn't a 1080p projector and it only has an 1800:1 contrast ratio but this is all about getting the movies to the biggest audience you can and for that, the light output is king and that means you can get away with feeding it A/V from your laptop or a portable DVD player. Add in a $200 short range FM transmitter, $500 for an inverter to get your car's 12volt to 110 AC and you have your own drive in- wherever you drive in to. Total outlay would be around $15,000.

2) For those with deep pockets and a smaller venue where image and audio is paramount, you can control the light and you don't have to go much bigger than a ten or twelve foot screen- the JVC DLA-RS10 is tough to beat and costs about $5,000. Another $2,500 on a great Stewart StudioTek screen, $4,500 on a Denon DVD-A1UDCI BluRay player, $7,500 for a Denon AVP-A1HDCI(A) Home Theater reciever, $10,000 on a set of Klipsch THX Ultra2 7.1 surround sound speakers and you have a small theatre that has an image and audio quality that surpasses any but the best cinemas. Total outlay is still under $30,000.

3) If you are on a tighter budget, the $5,000 JVC DLA-RS10 can be projected onto a more pocket friendly Elite EZ-Frame White screen for $500, pushed by the entry level Denon DVD-1800BD player for $300, hooked up to the Denon DHT-789BA A/V Receiver and Speaker package for $1000 and you are looking at a good image with compromised sound. This setup is around $6,800.

4) The collective of starving artist option is something like a Sanyo PLV-Z700 projector for $1800 (still 1080p at that price!), $230 gets you a Goo paint package for a permanent screen, play the BluRay off last years Sony BDPS350 which can be found for under $170 and can be connected up to the Sony HT-SS2300 receiver/speaker system for $400. Nobody is going to mistake it for option #2 above but it will still look and sound better than what most people have at home... for $2,600. Ten of you give up coffee and cigarettes for a month and you've got your equipment.



However I don't know if it would necessarily be a good thing to take smaller, more independent films out of the theatres and place them in technically inferior, ad hoc pretend-theatres in art galleries and community centres. Imagine how much MORE stigma would be attached to "art" or "indie" films were they to make such a shift?!

I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch. It gives all of the content equal legitimacy.

Personally I'm not very comfortable with horse shit like Transformers, G.I. Joe or Asteroids attaining an implicit superiority that better theatres will confer.

I don't believe that there can be any more stigma attached to "art" or "indie" film than there already is... 95% plus of the population isn't even aware of the existence of any particular art film and wouldn't care about them if they did- so there is no mindshare for them to lose. This wouldn't take any films out of the theatres, if they are of large enough appeal, they will get their theatrical distribution. This would be for the vast majority of art and indie films that never see the inside of any theatre and never will if the barrier to entry is kept at 50 foot screens and >300 seats.


It's true I don't know what the multiplexes are like in the states, all I can say is in my own part of the world it's not tooo bad. Yes, the multiplexes are heavily weighted towards the latest hollywood horse shit, but there are plenty of exceptions.

The main point I want to make is quite simple: I don't think there should be any widening of the divide between 'mainstream' and 'arthouse'. I think it's a real shame that this determines how films are marketed and distributed. Because, as I'm sure a lot of people here agree, both mainstream and arthouse have about an equal ratio of shit-to-gold.

I just feel that to start moving the arthouse or 'indie' films into art galleries, community centres, coffee shops etc. would further feed into this idea that films should be sharply classified by their content, purpose etc.

I prefer things the way they are now, because I know - having worked as a projectionist in both mainstream cinemas and "the largest arthouse cinema in the southern hemisphere" - that it doesn't make much financial sense for cinemas to try to cater to all tastes, there has to be a degree of specialisation. I just don't really want to see these specialisation go further and create and even greater divide between mainstream and arthouse.

The cinemas in America and Canada run almost exclusively studio distributed films that are expected to top a certain per screen average. It is tilted a bit in Canada with the government sticking its nose into yet another business but by and large, especially outside large metropolitan areas, you will never see an art or indie film inside a "legitimate" theatre.

Hell, the nearest town to me has had the theatre sitting silent since last summer and I could probably buy it for not much more than the cost of the renovations that were put into it in the months leading up to its closure let alone the land and building... the theatre business is borderline enough without putting movies up on the screen that are pretty much guaranteed to get less than the financial break even point of twenty people in the seats (for that particular theatre). If it can't keep the doors open with Batman and Ironman in its corner what chance does it have showing unknown art films?

Right now, the nearest "Art House Theatre" is over a thousand kilometre drive from my front door. That is the reality we are living with and I think that could be changed with these micro-cinemas.

[David Rasberry]

"It: the movie"

They made "Them", so why not?

Been done.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099864/

[Clint Johnson]

"...more small venues, or a different dist model for the small venus already showing small films, would open up significant opportunity."

The ability to show all sorts of content digitally, and not have to run the same film over and over all day for a week will help somewhat (maybe).

The lowering price of projection systems and audio to create a profitable smaller venue will definitely help.

The question is: why would they choose some little movie they never heard of instead of re-running Jurassic Park or Star Wars, or things that have been marketed everywhere?

No, the question is why would YOU show Jurassic Park or Star Wars? This isn't a solution for them, it is a solution for you and your back yard.



I like the idea of places with liquor licenses showing films, as you can make a date out of it. Not saying they'll want to see YOUR film on their date, but it's possible.

I've been considering what it would take to create a small "art house" theater here in my town. Probably not a good business venture -- unless there's a Monster Truck Channel I can subscribe to.

You can find the venues that have a liquor license already or you can finagle a special use, time limited permit in most municipalities. Put together the system you can afford (I gave some options in my previous post) and start calling the film makers and what few indie distributors there are out there and ask them how much they would charge for a single public performance of the film.

There isn't a trampled path to follow here and you will find some pitfalls that could be covered in a website dedicated to this- but it is up to the folks on the ground to implement this.

[David Rasberry]

Personally I can't imagine many people would be brave enough to invest capital in creating a whole new infrastructure for distributing independent films.

Since I design digital projection systems for a living, I can say that there are a lot of facilities, educational and public facilities, schools, libraries, museums, and even a surprising number of coffee house theaters that already have the necessary installations, maybe not the latest and greatest HD, but certainly adequate for starters.

What is lacking these days is the digital equivalent of the 16mm film distributors that existed back in the 60's and 70's to specifically serve such small commercial venues. The license and fee requirements are different from home movie distribution. Rental fees were typically either fixed or based on some formula for seat count and/or number of showings. For simplicity, ticket sales were not a factor.
The other limitation is that the only common distribution format is DVD. If we show a movie on DVD at the local coffe house cinema, we have to buy the home version then call a theatrical distributor and pay a rental license fee for commercial use, which depending on the film may or may not be available.
It can be hard to track down good original indie films with enough marketing and word of mouth support to promote for a local audience.
What is needed is a reasonably low cost, secure, high quality HD or 2k distribution format (not BluRay) for second tier commercial release. (Red Ray anyone?).
The new Auteur film streaming website might offer something of an alternative, but the quality of streamed video at this point in time is going to be generally unacceptable for large screen viewing. It is possible to lease satellite time for scheduled distribution, but that is expensive.

[Clint Johnson]

Blockbusters aren't egalitarian, quite the opposite. That's the point. Yes, there are some people who'll moan about any successful picture, not me I like all kinds of movie.

I was probably not using egalitarian in a clear manner there. I was going with the theatre chains being egalitarian in the input, not the results. The only way to get art films into the theatre is to grossly and unfairly weight the desires and opinions of the one person in a hundred thousand who would rather see a Kieślowski film than an Apatow film.


Once again, mine is not an argument about blockbuster versus indie, it's about good practice versus bad.

There are many blockbusters that have good scripts, good storytelling and are made with talented people who understand cinema and there are even more indie films that are made with bad scripts, bad story telling and talentless people.

I wasn't specifically calling you out but your qualification of "good practice versus bad" begs the question of who is defining these practises and on what criteria are they based? Large theatres require a large outlay in money to open and operate. They will base their practises on what keeps putting food in front of their kids and paychecks in their employees hands. Films require an even larger outlay of cash and if you want to keep making films you can't make too many films that lose money.

We will not agree with a lot of the decisions that these big studio executives make and I'm sure that a lot of them are driven far more by fear and desperation than by cool calculated pandering to the audience.

The people who put up the money are the ones making the decisions of what is good practise and what is bad- all I'm suggesting is that we find a way to lower the barrier to entry so that individuals who have an aesthetic outside the majority can engage in a practise that is financially bad for that majority but emotionally good for that individual. It may be a money losing proposition for that individual but it will be at a level that can be sustained.



Big bang equals big screen; I know what you are getting at, but for me it would be a terrible shame if the only films available to watch at the cinema were two-hour infomercials that sell games, toys and burgers. Cinema can do a hell of lot more.

I really don't think that this idea for mico-cinema will take any shows out of the theatre. I think that it would give a venue to thousands of films that would otherwise languish un-distributable as well as extend the public viewing of the "lucky" hundreds of films after they get the limited release on less than a hundred screens.


It's funny because before Jaws came along, that's exactly how cinema worked. Now we have far less choice and often no choice at all.

Trying to revive the long dead corpse of cinema past hasn't gotten us very far. It might not be to everyone's liking and I'm certainly not saying that it is THE answer- but micro-cinema at least puts A answer into your hands.


So, if we don't like Asteroids we accept a low grade option? What kind of rationale is that?

I think we need to realize that unless we become major studio executives, there is not much we can do about movies like Asteroids other than not go to see them. My -$10 vote isn't going to count for much compared to the studio executive's $100 million dollar vote.


Too funny, can you imagine watching Cinema Paradiso in Starbucks? There are multiplexes everywhere, why not use the distribution network that already exists? I'll tell you why, because the studios are monopolizing the market - less choice equals a better chance for them to make their money. They have little incentive to make a great film, but a big incentive to make a good marketing campaign.

The distribution network that exists doesn't want Cinema Paradiso and you can't force them to take it. What kind of a reception do you think you would get today for a movie with an opening weekend of $25,899? Funny or not, you would have a far easier time getting a local coffee shop to allow you to set up in the back room to show this movie than you would have talking any distributor into getting Cinema Paradiso back into a theatre chain.

I whole heartedly agree that the balance has swung too far toward the marketing side of the ledger, giving short shrift to the actual content of the film. We can hope that the box office failure of the most egregious of these films will feed back to the studio and bring things more in balance. I like me some big explosions and gratuitous nudity as much as the next guy- but for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster please embed that in a great story!


I agree, that new technology has a role to play, as it has already impacted on the music industry and it will certainly be interesting to see how that plays out. But lets not confuse that with the short-sighted business practices that are slowly killing cinema.

I think that "killing cinema" may be overstating things a little and is skewed by the filter of time. I think we have a predisposition to forget the bad and distill the good whenever we look to the past (or the opposite for the emotionally damaged and nihilistic amongst us). People look wistfully back at the pre-blockbuster era and they tend to forget that more than 90% of the movies created back then were unmitigated crap.

There is also the problem of talent dilution today. There is now more content created weekly than there was annually in decades past. Talent is now spread through ten times as many films and a hundred times as many television shows. That may have caused unmitigated crap to climb above the traditional 90% to 95% but it still leaves a lot of quality work... it is just lost in the marketing cacophony that surrounds the most vacuous of tentpole wannabes as they try to cover the fetid smell of cinematic crap to get as many people into the theatre on opening weekend before word of mouth can sink it.

Meanwhile it may behove us to actually step into the fray and do something about it rather than stand on the sidelines and hope that, because word of mouth now travels at the speed of Twitter it will create a positive feedback loop toward more quality film making.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

wow clint, it sounds like you've already researched and thought about this in great detail. what i want to know is why don't you have a crack at something like this?

btw i'm NOT being sarcastic, actually quite genuine (it's stupid but you gotta say it, people always misinterpret your intentions).

i'm still very very iffy about digital projection, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. i only say this because i am a projectionist, and whilst i've tried very hard to cultivate an appreciation for digital projection, i just prefer the look of projected celluloid. i also prefer watching the images projected on a huge screen that makes me feel small and insignificant, and increases my engagement with the material. i really, really don't think the content, ie. multiplex fodder with lots of explosions versus understated arthouse flick, should have any bearing on the size of the screen.

i was tech-checking a print of the new jarmusch film limits of control the other day and as i sat down and watched the last couple minutes, with a beautiful handheld shot tracking the protagonist from behind, i just thought 'this size is right'. it felt right to have it projected on such a large screen. it occupied the majority of my visual field and immersed me in the fake reality. in fact i'm tempted to suggest you could argue the opposite, that bigger screens are MORE important for arthouse fare, because if you think about watching some very slow, intimate scene, imagine tarkovsky or kurosawa or any of the other wonderful 'art' films i've seen over the years, the pacing lends itself to a more visually immersive experience. it's much easier to adapt to slow visual/dramatic rhythms when it is occupying all of your attention, as opposed to say on a large television screen ten feet away. no? discuss!

as much as i totally agree with the argument that smaller indie films should create a new market and infrastructure for distribution, it makes me very sad to think it will be necessary to shift them onto smaller screens with, in my opinion, inferior projection.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

another point entirely, but has this been raised at all yet in this thread? it is:

how are we defining arthouse/indie films? where are we drawing the line?

there are very robust 'arthouse' and 'independent' film distributors, like focus features, fox searchlight (who had the arthouse juggernaut, scumdog, which was basically a licence to print money!) who do big bucks.

technically their stuff is by no means mainstream. it is not multiplex fodder. but nor is it ultra low-budget indie. a lot of their stuff comes from very well established and highly respected directors.

surely these films don't qualify for this art gallery/coffee house scheme? or do they?

discuss! :001_rolleyes:








FOX SEARCHLIGHT:

scumdog
full monty
sideways
little miss sunshine
juno
girl 6
boys don't cry
bend it like beckham
28 days later (love this one! i also love it how danny boyle doesn't stick to one genre)
napoleon dynamite
garden state
thank you for smoking
the darjeeling limited
the wrestler

and.... ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT: THE MOVIE (!!!!) (in 'pre-production'!)


FOCUS FEATURES:

brokeback mountain
traffic
being john malkovich
billy elliot
far from heaven
the pianist
lost in translation
21 grams
eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
motorcycle diaries
broken flowers
constant gardener
burn after reading
milk


then you've got your local distributors, some examples that spring to mind for my part of the world, australia, are hopscotch and madman.

HOPSCOTCH:

2046
bowling for columbine
dave chappelle's block party
easy virtue
elegy
fahrenheit 9/11
the magician
pan's labyrinth
rescue dawn
rize
shortbus
transamerica
vicky cristina barcelona
what just happened? (loved this one, why did it do so poorly, i just don't understand)

[David Rasberry]

another point entirely, but has this been raised at all yet in this thread? it is:

how are we defining arthouse/indie films? where are we drawing the line?


discuss! :001_rolleyes:

Why should we draw a line? The line is drawn by the majors for the films that get picked up for commercial distro.
There were what? 5000 full length features submitted to Sundance this year, out of which 125 get picked for the festival and maybe a third of those get major distribution?
A cult film that comes to mind is Harold & Maude, released in 1971. It got panned by the critics and wound up in limited distribution with little promotion. Over time it succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. I saw this at the time in a 250 seat locally owned art house cinema.
Another popular current program for small venues is the Live at the Met series: Live monthly HD broadcasts of Metropolitan Opera performances via a private satellite channel subscription model to properly equipped HD digital theaters only. I am upgrading a local performing arts center system to support this series for next year.
I am sure there is a lot of out of the ordinary content that is highly entertaining for open minded sophisticated audiences, mostly more mature well educated people, who flock to see such programs when they are made available. Most of it typically won't even show up on cable or satellite channels. There is not one audience or market, there are multiple audiences and markets that for the most part are not being served at all.

[Liam Hall]

Why should we draw a line? The line is drawn by the majors for the films that get picked up for commercial distro.

The line is easy to draw. If your film helps sell burgers and toys it's a commercial film. If not it's an art-house indie film.

I agree with many of Clint's points, but I wouldn't want to be the guy to tell Martin Scorsese that his latest film isn't commercial enough for mainstream cinema and folk will have to go watch it at Starbucks.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think we're going to see subscription esque models evolve out as piracy doesn't evaporate.

Netflix on Demand is a good example of future distribution. I think on demand subscription is a great opportunity for smaller producers because the cost of entry is $0 above what they're already paying to see Starship Troopers and Zoolander.

The big movies will still be popular but people might flip on something they've never heard of that sounds interesting. That's a far more likely scenario than spending money on an unknown DVD.

I have a Zunepass with unlimited music. I download a lot more indie artists now because if it's crap I just delete it.

Big studio work would bring people in to the rental plan but they might leave with little miss sunshine. I watched King of California two weeks ago on Netflix OnDemand. It was unlikely I would buy or rent it. But I watched it and I'm sure they got a little revenue in return where they wouldn't have otherwise.

If it's a movie you already like then you probably want to own it instead of renting and it's not a lost DVD sale.

[David Rasberry]

A few months ago I attended a showing of a compilation of festival award winning short films. 600 seat house at the local performing arts center. It was packed. I expected to be bored, but every one of thes shorts was entertaining and compelling to watch. There is also a social aspect of going to a public event that is missing from personal viewing by whatever means.
Tickets were $6. That's $3600 from one showing. 100 similar showings around the country gets $360,000. If the 9 filmmakers get to split half of that, its $20k each. Probably enough to cover much of the production costs for these films. Small venue distribution could give a lot of filmmakers a chance to make their costs as well as promote downloads and DVD sales, just as major distribution does for theatrical releases. Many indie films don't necessarily need a mass audience to work, they just need AN audience.

[Joe G.]

"Many indie films don't necessarily need a mass audience to work, they just need AN audience. "

Does anyone know what Netflix's cut is back to the filmmaker?

Almost all the films I see nowadays are Netflix rentals.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

For DVDs I believe nothing on top of the sale of a DVD.

It was established in some court ruling in the 80s that you have the right to rent out normal movies. I think blockbuster used to pay extra just so that they could get them a few weeks early.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

Why should we draw a line?

?

i think you miss my point. i'm talking about defining our terms for the sake of discussion.



we keep using the label 'arthouse' and 'indie' without actually defining what that means.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

The line is easy to draw. If your film helps sell burgers and toys it's a commercial film. If not it's an art-house indie film.

?

come on, now you're getting lazy.

"commercial" film? i don't understand this tag. i was under the impression that every film is created with the intention of at least recovering the expenses involved in it's creation. if they're charging a price for admission, it's a "commercial" film. i think it's a very unhelpful term and should be avoided.

"mainstream" is more helpful. but selling burgers and toys? again, not helpful. off the top of my head, successful multiplex films that have no obvious tie-ins with pushing burgers and toys: sex & the city, mr. & mrs. smith, the english patient, the aviator.....

i don't think we should be so flippant about how we define the terms of this discussion. as was pointed out, you're not going to have scorsese's latest film shown on a tiny screen in a coffee shop.

there's no such thing as a simple binary distinction between all films. it's far more complex and layered than this. that's why i raise this question.

every year at the melbourne international film festival i see a lot of 'indie' films that are absolutely unmitigated pieces of shit. so unbelievably awful, and i'm glad they don't get theatrical distribution. there's a big difference between these films and most of the stuff i see at the dedicated 'arthouse' cinemas.

[Liam Hall]

?

come on, now you're getting lazy.
Eh?? I'd say 'commercial' is exactly the right word. It clearly defines the type of cynical film that now dominates Hollywood. There are commercial films and there's every other type of film.

If you don't believe me, pop down your local Burger King and order your Transformers mini-burger. Too many films are commissioned on the basis of a deal with corporations that have nothing to do with movie-making; get Hasbro or McDonalds on board and you'll soon have Jerry Bruckheimer and his cohorts hunting you down!

Call me an old fashioned Corinthian, but I still believe there is a place in Hollywood for movies to be commissioned on the basis of a script and the collective ability of the people proposing they make the picture, whatever the genre. But then, I also believe athletes shouldn't take drugs, politicians should represent the people and England will win the Ashes, so what do I know:)

I do know that Hollywood made this problem when they decided to try and control the market by opening a movie on as many screens as possible and that this carpet bombing approach has increased the cost of distribution to such an extent that marketing the movie is the single most important part of the whole enterprise and actually making the damn film is entirely secondary.

Many have tried to change the business model (David Puttnamn tried and got booted out of town) but as Clint has pointed out it will ultimately be technology that changes the way movies are commissioned, made and distributed.

I think Hollywood needs to wake up. Their road map for the digital age wont work. You only need to look at the meltdown in the music business to understand that. They think they can beat the pirates and protect their market share by beaming films into cinemas by satellite, where they are unscrambled and digitally projected. But if the films are the type of mindless shit they are currently producing no one will want to watch them. Also, with cameras like RED the cost of making a film is somewhat reduced, so the opportunity for Indies should be better. But who will decide which of the 2500 or so Indie films is any good and worthy of showing in coffee shop or village halls is another thing?

Hope that was less lazy:)

[Roberto Lequeux]

a project that already has mindspace makes for an easier sale because it comes with the heavy lifting part of the marketing already taken care of.

Bingo... I don't agree with all of your views but I like the way you reason.

[M Most]

They think they can beat the pirates and protect their market share by beaming films into cinemas by satellite, where they are unscrambled and digitally projected. But if the films are the type of mindless shit they are currently producing no one will want to watch them.

Well, based on this year's box office, a hell of a lot of people want to watch them.

[Tom Lowe]

lmao, this is all nonsense. only .01% of human beings are going to be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat and make themselves successful directors, like Aronofsky or Nolan.

if you don't think you have what it takes, get out now. you need to have supreme confidence in what you are doing.

[Andrew Walker]

lmao, this is all nonsense. only .01% of human beings are going to be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat and make themselves successful directors, like Aronofsky or Nolan.

if you don't think you have what it takes, get out now. you need to have supreme confidence in what you are doing.

I would agree with you that the need for confidence in what your doing is keep. But I bet you if you ask some of these directors if they had doubts early on in their careers they will say yes.

I believe the act of doubt is a good way to keep one's feet on the ground just as long as it doesn't stop you from doing what you want to do. Everyone needs a moment of reflection and doubt does that sometimes. There are just a lot of unrealistic people out there trying to get into the business.

[Tom Lowe]

Drew I agree with you. That was an awesome post.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Eh?? I'd say 'commercial' is exactly the right word. It clearly defines the type of cynical film that now dominates Hollywood. There are commercial films and there's every other type of film.

If you don't believe me, pop down your local Burger King and order your Transformers mini-burger. Too many films are commissioned on the basis of a deal with corporations that have nothing to do with movie-making; get Hasbro or McDonalds on board and you'll soon have Jerry Bruckheimer and his cohorts hunting you down!

Call me an old fashioned Corinthian, but I still believe there is a place in Hollywood for movies to be commissioned on the basis of a script and the collective ability of the people proposing they make the picture, whatever the genre. But then, I also believe athletes shouldn't take drugs, politicians should represent the people and England will win the Ashes, so what do I know:)

I do know that Hollywood made this problem when they decided to try and control the market by opening a movie on as many screens as possible and that this carpet bombing approach has increased the cost of distribution to such an extent that marketing the movie is the single most important part of the whole enterprise and actually making the damn film is entirely secondary.

Many have tried to change the business model (David Puttnamn tried and got booted out of town) but as Clint has pointed out it will ultimately be technology that changes the way movies are commissioned, made and distributed.

I think Hollywood needs to wake up. Their road map for the digital age wont work. You only need to look at the meltdown in the music business to understand that. They think they can beat the pirates and protect their market share by beaming films into cinemas by satellite, where they are unscrambled and digitally projected. But if the films are the type of mindless shit they are currently producing no one will want to watch them. Also, with cameras like RED the cost of making a film is somewhat reduced, so the opportunity for Indies should be better. But who will decide which of the 2500 or so Indie films is any good and worthy of showing in coffee shop or village halls is another thing?

Hope that was less lazy:)

You complain about everything and offer nothing, figures. How about some solutions Liam?!
What do you want exactly, more coffee shop theaters showing art house films? Is it a bad thing that I would want to advertise a film I make and get it on as many screens as possible?

If there is anything wrong with Hollywood its that they are spending too much time fighting the wrong battles.

[Ruairi Robinson]

lmao, this is all nonsense. only .01% of human beings are going to be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat and make themselves successful directors, like Aronofsky or Nolan.

if you don't think you have what it takes, get out now. you need to have supreme confidence in what you are doing.

There are a lot of people that mistake arrogance for confidence and talent.

[Brandon Fraley]

There are a lot of people that mistake arrogance for confidence and talent.

I cant tell if that's an endorsement or criticism of arrogance :biggrin:

[Tom Lowe]

There are a lot of people that mistake arrogance for confidence and talent.

Too many.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I cant tell if that's an endorsement or criticism of arrogance :biggrin:

Take a wild guess.

[Tom Lowe]

It's good to have you back, Ruairi.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

Eh?? I'd say 'commercial' is exactly the right word. It clearly defines the type of cynical film that now dominates Hollywood. There are commercial films and there's every other type of film.

If you don't believe me, pop down your local Burger King and order your Transformers mini-burger. Too many films are commissioned on the basis of a deal with corporations that have nothing to do with movie-making; get Hasbro or McDonalds on board and you'll soon have Jerry Bruckheimer and his cohorts hunting you down!

Call me an old fashioned Corinthian, but I still believe there is a place in Hollywood for movies to be commissioned on the basis of a script and the collective ability of the people proposing they make the picture, whatever the genre. But then, I also believe athletes shouldn't take drugs, politicians should represent the people and England will win the Ashes, so what do I know:)

I do know that Hollywood made this problem when they decided to try and control the market by opening a movie on as many screens as possible and that this carpet bombing approach has increased the cost of distribution to such an extent that marketing the movie is the single most important part of the whole enterprise and actually making the damn film is entirely secondary.

Many have tried to change the business model (David Puttnamn tried and got booted out of town) but as Clint has pointed out it will ultimately be technology that changes the way movies are commissioned, made and distributed.

I think Hollywood needs to wake up. Their road map for the digital age wont work. You only need to look at the meltdown in the music business to understand that. They think they can beat the pirates and protect their market share by beaming films into cinemas by satellite, where they are unscrambled and digitally projected. But if the films are the type of mindless shit they are currently producing no one will want to watch them. Also, with cameras like RED the cost of making a film is somewhat reduced, so the opportunity for Indies should be better. But who will decide which of the 2500 or so Indie films is any good and worthy of showing in coffee shop or village halls is another thing?

Hope that was less lazy:)

dude i totally agree with you, at least about the cynical commercialism of hollywood, but i don't agree with the use of the term 'commerical'.

as i already stated, i can't see how one film should be more deserving of the tag commercial than another, since they are all products competing in a marketplace for money, regardless of their content or artistic aspirations.

i also don't see this as a particularly bad thing. corporations cynically churning out shit to turn a quick buck, of course, i don't like it. but i don't have a problem with anyone trying to make money with their film. it's that simple. therefore, i find the term 'commercial' unhelpful because it creates a false binary. is that fair enough?

[Roberto Lequeux]

Saying that a good movie couldn't spring from the inspiration of X-product is like saying that without film or a red one you can't make beautiful pictures. Or that you will make beautiful pictures if you have a Red or shoot on film.

I could think of three or four basic story concepts that would be loosely based on the game, or at least somehow incorporate the game into the main thread of the story. I am just trying to say that movies that suck do so for many more reasons than just from grabbing a specific and inserting it into the concept. If anything, the blame would most likely fall on whomever fast-tracks it never bothering to look at the script as a necessary piece of the art puzzle.

I could see a magnificent movie coming from this game. I won't put my money on it, but it could indeed happen.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

I could see a magnificent movie coming from this game. I won't put my money on it, but it could indeed happen.

however unlikely i think that is, what you say is not incorrect.

but - i don't think that is the point here. i think the real point of the original post - and the original poster may correct me if i'm wrong - is simply that just choosing some old video game with absolutely no plot element whatsoever, is merely yet another illustration, and quite an amusing one, of just how gutless, cynical and conservative hollywood is in choosing its projects.

the issue here is the point at which they decide to greenlight a project, and the poverty of the concept itself. it has nothing to do with what happens after this point.

the clowns who run hollywood have demonstrated time and time again that they are incapable of original thinking or risk taking (which you could argue are important elements in the creation of something with a degree of artistic or creative merit).

the asteroids movie, i have no doubt, will be another bland, mindless piece of cgi garbage marketed in exactly the same way, with the same hype and buzz and moronic trailers as transformers, 2012, g.i. joe, terminator 4 etc. etc. etc.





i mean, sure, maybe they'll get chris nolan on board and maybe he will pull something incredible out of his arse. after all, batman is hardly a great movie on paper. some dude who runs around being a vigilante in a big rubber bat costume? but cinema is about suspension of disbelief, and sometimes the most ridiculous premises underpinning the entire thing can be masterfully suspended.


but in the case of asteroids, i doubt it.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

how many of you would refuse to direct or shoot asteroids ? :)

[Brandon Fraley]

It's good to have you back, Ruairi.

agreed! :)

[Liam Hall]

is that fair enough?

Yes, fair enough. I think we're largely debating semantics and I agree with you, every movie should try to turn a profit.

[Liam Hall]

What do you want exactly, more coffee shop theaters showing art house films? Is it a bad thing that I would want to advertise a film I make and get it on as many screens as possible?
What do I want? 'd like to see an end to Hollywood's reliance on franchises and more original work in cinemas. I'd like to be able to go down to my local multiplex and be able to find at least one film worth watching. I tried to go to the cinema last week with my wife, there wasn't a single film aimed at people like me - everything was designed for generation dumb. That's a shame in my book.

Believe me, if I had the solution to all this nonsense I'd offer it up.


Well, based on this year's box office, a hell of a lot of people want to watch them.

That shows how successful the marketing and distribution is and not necessarily how good the movie is.

[Clint Johnson]

how many of you would refuse to direct or shoot asteroids ? :)

Honestly, I would need to see the script. If Asteroids ends up being anything like the recent television mini-series Impact on ABC or Meteor on NBC- I would most emphatically and vehemently refuse. Really, I'll be squatting in Stanley Park and snaring squirrels to eat before I would agree to do something like that.

BUT I am actually writing a spec pilot for a television series where the first season is event driven by a civilian space mission to shove an iron asteroid into cislunar orbit; so I could definitely see a great film coming out of the single word "asteroids". Give me that title and enough rope to hang myself and I could write a script that I would wave any fee to direct/shoot.

My version would probably only have a box office potential of about $50 million so I fully expect Asteroids to be a steaming pile of mindless CGI that is actually worse than Impact or Meteor in every way but production values... and for it to make $100 million on its opening weekend.

Which actually sums up nicely why they keep making movies like this.