HD For Indies

Hey Mike,

Steve here from drinkmepictures.com - I agree with you that some people may need to dial back what they're trying to do, but our target of 60,000 members at $10 per member is about as small as you could really be for anything close to a real feature. That translates into a shooting budget for us of $350,000 with another $250k-$300k in direct deferrals.

A couple clarifications about what we're doing that is different. 1) We're not interested in attracting any investors - we're targeting the most important person in the business of motion pictures - the AUDIENCE. Each person, just like you and me that see many movies every day, week, and month. 2) We're bigger than nobody, but a lot of people probably haven't heard of us - yet. Was Chad Hurley or Steve Chen a household name? Did that stop them from making YouTube a major success?

I found the cinemashares.com site the most interesting of the ones that Scott outlines. Mainly because that is a LOT of work to get a registered security model going. Ultimately, I think the legal and securities registration costs are so astronomically high that it means that the "film" needs to be in the $10M+ range in order to make sense. That's a lot of $20 shares to reach $10M!

Taking a cue from the level of successes of Robert Greenwald and "Iraq for Sale" - as well as the documentary, "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price" which launched "Brave New Theaters" - I think hitting 60,000 to 100,000 members/units is not that far out of reach.

To put it another way...

The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are less than 170,000,000 to 1 and the odds of getting selected at a major festival and securing traditional distribution are equally daunting. I'd put it to be at least 500 to 1 - if not more. And that is AFTER securing investment capital, acquiring the necessary talent/stars, AND successfully shooting/finishing the movie. Millions of people believe they have a shot at winning Powerball - no matter how astronomical the odds - so why is it so hard to believe that we can't entertain and enlist 60,000 people to help us pave a new path for movies?

In an age where a guy can trade a single red paper clip for a house, and the contributions for tsunami victims from individuals surpass those of all their governments combined, I think the time is perfect for the Internet to be legitimately used to find an audience for movies that have yet to be made.

I'll tell you what... in the spirit of contributing to community... join up at DrinkMePictures.com and I'll make a donation to your blog. :)

Cheers,
Steve
 

Mike - I totally disagree about dialing back. There is just no significant market for shorts unless you win an academy award. Features are an actual commodity (for better or worse).

I think the webfund methodolog is a valid one especially for movies with a a strong niche-obsessive or subject obsessive audience. There are many... various religions, ethnicities, music modes, dance modes - anything that has a fervent following could probably do this because word of mouth could spread.

That said, this drinkmepictures movies says their subject matter is "love and tattoos." Ironically I see neither on their website, I see nothing but an explanation of the process of how the whole thing works. I'm not sure the tattoo obsessive audience is going to respond to this. I would imagine if that's your niche market - you should be presenting a website that is just gushing with things your audience would want to see. There should be a teaser or something which makes people think "wow! I gotta see that!!" White Noise was an amazing ad that had nothing from the actual movie but sure gave the idea (though the trailer was much better than the movie). My point being - you need to reach your audience. The site is very soft and clean and corporate - more for the people who think love and tattoos are cute. I don't even know if this is a comedy or a drama.

Here is a discussion about netizen financing which references to a korean effort -

http://shorterlink.com/?7K60BI

here is the korean film link:

http://www.koreanfilm.org/netizen.html
 

Steve - points for Going For It, but I think it is a real challenge to get folks, nope, not folks, CONSUMERS to pony up movie ticket prices at the front end for a movie that hasn't even been made yet.

I also support the idea of going after niche audiences, and then appealling to them.

If I were going to go the self-funded movie route, I'd be inclined to make a movie more like Four Eyed Monsters - integrating technology and the internet into the subject matter integrally, but beyond that niche interest being of broad appeal - it is a love story after all.

-mike
 

Hey Everybody,

You know, I have read many, MANY articles on the web about the publicity machinery surrounding Four Eyed Monsters.

I have NEVER read an article extolling the imagination or even the craft on display in the movie.

I think that speaks volumes about what is driving the fascination with FEM: interest in funding/self-distribution.

One could very easily argue that the distribution of FEM, while novel and unique, is ultimately a failure. As far as I can tell the two creators of FEM are doing nothing but promoting their movie. That means they aren't making other movies. And (dare I even say it?) that also means they aren't making money. I wonder if they're even breaking even? How long have they been at this? Over a year? Over two years? Three? I hope not over three.

Getting your film into a festival won't make you rich. In fact, the festival probably won't even cover your travel expenses to get there. Of course that won't stop the festival from collecting money from audiences who wish to see your movie. But I digress...

As far as the FEM model goes, how many hours go into booking one show in one theater for one night for an audience of one dozen? How many hours go into the podcasts, blogs, etc.?

I don't think the FEM model is the way to go. Have they given indy filmmakers some interesting ideas on web promotion and networking? You bet they have.

But jeez, at some point one must move on to the next big idea, the next film.

Perhaps it's the right publicity machine, but for the wrong movie.

What say you?
 

Take it from a lawyer (over 25 years of experience) -- anything posted seeking investors (ever the "you call us" approach) is going to bring down the SEC on your heads so hard you may decide to quit making movies.
 

The CinemaShares.com patented business method (U.S. Patent # 6,792,411) uses a NASDAQ Small cap combined with Direct Registration (used for Employee Stock plans) for an IPO on the Internet (also called a DPO). The CinemaShares NASDAQ Small Cap IPO essentially replaces the typical LLC formed for most movie companies and gives a liquidity to all equity investors in a movie not found in an LLC. While our business model does have a class of stock for movie fans ($20 preferred shares that offer a DVD dividend), there is also the $4 common stock for large equity participants such as studios, foreign distributors, etc. While the fan component DOES build a large community of online movie fans, it is not necessary to sell all of the shares to fans. Furthermore, the traditional market makers do not want the preferred shares but want common stock to trade (and short themselves!)
The CinemaShares Business Method, having been approved in principle by the SEC through years of work with top securities attorneys in the country, is designed for films with a budget of at least $10 million, but films with budgets of $20 to $30 million would work better, due to the need to assemble a package exciting enough to attract purchasers of the shares. An especially workable model would be one where the overall budget raised is from $25 to $50 million with at least $15 million allocated to Prints and Advertising expenses. There is also the cost of the offering to consider, which would be at least $200 to $300k, but we do eliminate the traditional loan and the interest payments!
The concept also works best with a particular affinity group and CinemaShares.com's first film is on the Life of Dr. David Livingstone the famous African missionary. It is a film designed to appeal to Christian moviegoers. Our business method is designed for LICENSING to filmmakers, with a $500k fee to raise the needed funds, refundable if the offering is not fully subscribed.

More information can be obtained on the CinemaShares.com Web site under "Corporate Info"
All the best to al filmmakers out there!
Gene Massey, Los Angeles, Ca.