HD For Indies

IndieMaverick.net: Filmmakers No Longer Have to Sell Their Bodies to Science to Raise Their Budgets:
"We at indiemaverick.net realised that thanks to new technologies the costs of filmmaking were dropping but there were few avenues to raise budgets of less than $1.5 million US. If you were a budding director such as Kevin Smith (Clerks) or Jim Jarmusch (Stranger than Paradise) looking to raise $50k to make your low budget feature the only options you had were friends, family or credit cards.

OK, I definitely agree with that part.

'Everyone has a home editing system and access to a camera now. It's a filmmaking revolution but the traditional ways of getting a film made haven't changed to accommodate this,' Hall says. 'You still need to raise a million dollars through a studio, production company or government body. Indiemaverick.net is looking to give those people left out of the usual funding avenues a way of raising their budget.'"

Sorta - think of it as paintbrushes and paint are cheap - but models still cost, and Oh Yeah - ya gotsta have some talent with the brush. One aspect is changing, and for certain kinds of projects (docs/reality a lot, big feature films less so) this can be a Big Deal in terms of delivered production value to the screen.

So how does it work?
Filmmakers provide their script, budget, poster and links to any previous films etc up on the website. Investors search for projects they are interested in, read the scripts, watch the previous films. When they find one they like they invest for as little as $25USD. Once the filmmakers reach their desired budget their monies are released and they go into production on their film. All profits the film makes are split 70 percent (investors) and 30 percent (producers). Indiemaverick.net takes no profit from the sale of the film. Filmmakers have total creative control over their project and can sell it wherever and to whomever they want. Indiemaverick.net does reserve the right to offer the film for download from the site once the film has completed any cinema or DVD run. Every investor receives a limited edition DVD of the film.


OK, as little as $25 at a time?


"If Indiemaverick.net was around earlier, Robert Rodriguez would not have had to offer his body for medical experiments to raise the $7000 he needed to make El Mariachi which went on to make $2 million at the box office. He could have just uploaded his script and reel to our site, sat back and waited for the money to pour in," says creator Shane T. Hall.

Ehh....sure. Not. The script was OK for El Mariachi. It was all about the production gusto and skill that made that movie. Remember, there's 3 movies: as written, as shot, as cut. Some movies are born (or, ahem, die) after the script, on the set or in post. What might have been banal on page can be brought to life by good talent. A great script can be knifed by less-than-adequate production value.

OK. So Shane's starter idea is definitely a good one - create a market for investors in smaller films.

Some of the problems:
-who is vetting these scripts? Are you waiting for the public to dredge through the majority of submissions that are crap? (which, in an open system, they will be). Who has time to read a bunch of scripts and then put in $25 in the hopes it will be made? This model is NOT going to work.
-development takes time and skill to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think the idea of having the public screen promising content is valid...but who pre-filters to save us the time? It'll have to be like YouTube in terms of letting popularity pull stuff to the fore. Who goes first? I'm calling all projects "AAA Man" or "AAAAAaah! I'm falling" and not Zebra or Xylophone Adventures.
-other companies are using public feedback, but LATER - such as after the movies are made and into the festival circuit. When you invest in anything, it isn't just the idea (learned this during the dotcom phase) - the team is more important than the idea. That's why Bruckheimer can make a zillion dollars on Transformers, but I predict Speed Racer will suck HARD. (Aside - since I think the Wachowskis jumped the shark already).
-other minor issue: if open to public for investing - great, everybody can see/rip off your idea

So - I like the market analysis that drives this, but the model isn't going to cut it...in my opinion.

Why write so much about it then? Because I've been thinking a lot about what differentiates changes in the tools of a business versus changes in a business.

SUNDAY UPDATE: the comments have been quite lively on this one, with comments and responses between Shane (the site creator) and others. One of the excellent points I forgot to bring up early on: the legality of this business model. I recall reading about another site that tried something similar previously (I think for a single, particular film) and got into trouble over the legality of offering up an investment opportunity publicly that wasn't registered with the SEC, or didn't screen for qualified investors, or something along those lines. I emailed Shane and we back and forthed a bit, at one point I suggested the following:

Hey -

didn't mean to sound totally ragging on it, just pointed out some problems, which could be done more constructively.

Let me clarify - I think striving to find new ways to fund movies is GREAT, but this approach has flaws.

I think there's some missing pieces in what you suggest, but there's a good seed living in there.

-mike
biggest issue:

3. As for vetting the scripts this is something we dont want to do. We believe the net is about democracy. If we choose the scritps then we are no different to every studio adn funding body. We want the public to choose. And as you said the more money they've raised the better people believe the film will be. Films are ordered by highest percentage of budget raised. The film closest to goiing into production by a percentile is at the top.


The biggest issue - what is the incentive for "the public" to go through these?

Way to improve:

-those who fund the most, THAT AREN'T AFFILIATED WITH THE FILM (that is of course a very hard distinction to draw)...hmmm....wait, try again:

-those who have invested the most in OTHER PROJECTS (total amount invested) should carry a heavier score/weight for their recommendations, based on money where mouth is.

-or at least, some kind of ranking for "total invested in films besides this one, amount invested in this film" would be good to know.

-in terms of investing, it is a far safer thing to bet later, when the product is closer to delivery, than early on, when it is just an idea the and team/concept/product are unproven. As with other venture capital, earliest money should be best rewarded. The first invested dollar is the greatest risk, therefore should get the greatest reward. Last dollar in gets lowest yield.

-as with all development projects, more money than originally anticipated should be expected. Completion funds net a lower yield than seed round investors - completion funders are more likely to get their money back - less risk, less reward.

-the most interesting folks to visit your site aren't the public, who might confirm or deny a suspicion that a property might be good, but potential investors for films. It'd be like playing the penny stocks for them. Or talent scouting. Or something.

All grist for the mill to figure this out.


I'm not down on Shane for trying to do this, I just think as present suggested it isn't going to work. That doesn't mean give up, just that it needs further work.

My comments didn't even tackle the legalities, which I think are their biggest problem right now.

Again, why discuss this at length if this isn't working? Because a new indie funding model would be a very good thing. It isn't worth most serious investors' time to put $50-$150K into a highly risky venture - moviemaking is, from a strictly fiscal point of view, a HORRIBLE investment. There's usually an emotional component to investing in a movie.

withoutabox.com has been trying to do more to help those who've already made a film, and good on them for working on it (dunno how well that has turned out).

But with all the new avenues of potential distribution beyond theatrical opening up, the catch is now how to get to proper distribution channels, market the product successfully, and recoup investment so that it can be a sustainable business model.

-mike

-mike

Labels: distribution