HD For Indies

Got a press release email this morning:

Withoutabox has reached a definitive agreement to be acquired by the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), an Amazon.com subsidiary. This presents a great opportunity for all our independent filmmakers, festivals, and industry professionals. The new arrangement preserves the vision that Withoutabox has championed for eight years, teaming it with the Internet's number one destination for film lovers and film insiders.

As Filmmakers and self-distributors, you can look forward to more ways to help reach your audiences and monetize your work.

As Festivals, you can look forward to more powerful tools to scout, collect, select, and schedule films, plus access to a vast audience of movie lovers that only IMDb can deliver - more than 50 million visitors a month.

As film Sellers, Sales Agents, and Acquirers, you can look forward to unprecedented information, discovery, and connectivity at your fingertips, across the entire landscape of commercial and independent film.

The day-to-day operations of Withoutabox will remain much the same, including the entire management team, our experienced staff, and the dedicated customer service you love.


Interesting - points out the direction IMDB might want to head into, from an aggregator of data on finished/developing products, suddenly into the space of helping folks get distribution. From passive to active role. (see update below)

Without A Box started as a service to help filmmakers submit finished films to multiple festivals at once. Last year I reported on how they were trying become a middleman, helping connect filmmakers and acquisition funding. Will IMDB keep pushing this forward, or will they get folded in as is and remain complacent with services offered?

I would love to have been a fly on the wall to see what the cost justification and strategy was for IMDB to acquire these folks.

-mike

UPDATE - AH! And then I, you know, READ the whole thing in detail, and my brain registered this time that IMDB is owned by AMAZON, and it all clicks. (Maybe I should start drinking coffee? Nah...be like starting smoking cigaretttes or jabbing heroin haphazardly into my arm). Amazon wants to be more vertically integrated in the content chain. Like Mark Cuban's HDNet/Magnolia Pictures/etc. Except, you know, bigger and more successful.

Labels: distribution, online distribution

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

Internet speed battle escalates | Chicago Tribune

New Comcast links promise to fly along 25 times faster, and threaten to transform the television industry
...
Comcast Corp.'s chief executive, Brian Roberts, unveiled a computer connection that delivers data 25 times faster than today's cable modem services.
...
Called Wideband, the service could be available commercially in a couple of years, Roberts said, but declined to say at what price.
...
policymakers in Washington wring their hands over America's declining position regarding broadband connectivity. An international study last month found that more than a dozen countries now have greater coverage and faster speeds for Internet connections than the United States.
...
introduced a resolution to make it national policy to supply universally available Internet connection speeds of 100 megabits per second by 2015.

(Current broadband varies from 1 to 10 megabits/sec)

Consider that current HDTV is 19.2 megabits/sec, and you start to get the idea of what that could do for you.

Interest quote from an Internet based video service:

"In three to five years, there will be devices, not computers, that you can connect to your flat-screen TV that will bring anything you want to see from the Web," said Pulver. "You can bypass the middle people, including the cable TV systems, and just download programs offered by content producers.

"I believe the cable companies will try to put up roadblocks to keep that from happening. They will have the fight of their lives."


Obviously, this starts to open doors for indie content - what if you could host/distribute HD movies from a website or service directly to a TV without a middleman on a pay-per-view basis? That's a big leap from what the guy above is suggesting, but that'd be the ultimate - if you could subscribe to a show the same way you subscribe to an RSS feed (speaking of which, you ARE running NetNewsWire, right?).

-mike

PS - thanks to longtime reader/contributor Cord Frederic Romberg for sending this one in. See something you think should be up on HD4NDs? Send it in! Email at top of page.

Labels: distribution, future, hardware, Internet, online distribution, online video

Indie Films Going Online

About online distro of indie movies. Points out that low budget can suck - big surprise. Points out not a lot of money in it so far - big surprise.

But interesting to see what folks are trying and how well it is or isn't working.

And since I've completely fallen behind on keeping up, go read CinemaTech to catch up on the last couple of weeks of what he's been up to.

-mike

UPDATE:

Commenter Bill Cunningham made such good points I want to put'em up here in the article where you can see'em:

I read this article and posted about it on my blog, but I wanted to let you know this husband and wife team have done everything wrong here. No wonder they feel like they have to "punt" through downloading in order to get their film some attention.

- They didn't do any research on how licensing to international territories usually works.

- They degraded the quality of their film in the press.

- They signed a SAG agreement when they could have acquired bigger names that are SAG core (or at least more marketable names).

- They didn't try to tie in the fact they had a "name" from the BLADE TV series in their film.

- And yes, if you look at the opening credits on Amazon, they made a lousy film (or at least a terrible opening credit sequence).

The fact is that no one guarantees you that your film will get distribution when it is produced. It's up to you to make a marketable product to sell.

In other words - No one is going to buy a Yugo when there are so many BMWs out there avaialable for a Yugo price.


I never read the full article, just skimmed, posted, and moved on, but Bill seems to nail it pretty well there. And I agree - a title sequence makes for a crappy trailer. That's just LAZY filmmaking. The job isn't done when the film is mastered out - the job is done when the theatrical run is over, ALL the rights have been sold, carefully, maximizing return, then the sequel pre-sold and funded, the DVD income tallied, etc.

Put it in terms of any other product out there - shipping product is just the first step...then you gotta sell it and support it to actually make the money.

See his article here:

DISContent: Indie Doesn't Have to Mean Stupid! (and he self promotes at the end of it...like a good filmmaker should!)

Labels: distribution, online distribution

AppleInsider | Starz sues Disney over iTunes movie downloads - here's a first - Starz is suing Disney, claiming Disney breached Starz' exclusivity clauses in their contract. Starz claims they had exclusive rights to sell movies like Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest online, claiming Starz had or should have had the right to sell it on Vongo, their online service.

This could get messy and expensive. Yet another reason to pay verrrrrrrry close attention to your rights management when you sell a project.

I have no idea who is in the right on this one, but there's money on the table, so blood in the water. Cap'n Jack ain't waltzing merrily (if staggery) out of this one nonchalantly...

-mike

Labels: distribution

New firm makes Blu-ray DVDs for indie filmmakers - Yahoo! News

This is EXACLTY up my alley:

A respected Hollywood movie producer and a DVD pioneer said they have formed a company to make and distribute DVDs in the new Blu-ray digital format for independent film and video makers.


EXCELLENT. These guys aren't doing HD-DVD, but are doing Blu-ray.

Labels: Blu-ray, distribution

CinemaTech: Jim Cameron's 'Avatar': 3-D Only? - as usual, Scott's on top of it - so you thought you were all cutting edge thinking about shooting digital 1080p, or perhaps 2K or 4K in the next year with a Red One?

Pfah!

Yesterday's news.

James Cameron is doing 1080p 3D ONLY for his film "Avatar" due to be released in 2009.

Read on for the scoop of how Hollywood is hoping 3D will be The Force that brings theatrical attendance back to the fore, and not home viewing.

The argument: big screen 3D will offer something you CAN'T get at home. The new 3D systems work by multiply flashing images for each eye with glasses that are polarized to only see left eye in left eye and right image in right eye. You couldn't do that at home, could you?

Or could you? The new thing in home theater HDTVs is 120 Hz screens for smoother 24p playback -

120Hz HDTVs: The Secret to Making Movies Look as Smooth as Butter - Gizmodo

or to find out which ones,

Guide to 120Hz HDTVs: Which Sets Have That Magic Number? - Gizmodo

....could not that tech be adapted for 3D? Either running at 96 Hz (maybe) or using a stuttered, 3:2 pulldown style cadence - 3 left/2 right/2 left/3 right or somesuch? At least until 144 Hz screens come out for the home...

Anyway, Scott links to a couple of articles of interest.

-mike

Labels: 3D, cameras, distribution, Kirsner

What is RocketIndie? (FAQ) - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

I mentioned during my Sundance coverage that my friend Jarred Land, who owns/runs dvxuser.com and reduser.net, has started a new service - RocketIndie.com.

What is it? It is a means of self distribution of any disc based media - movies, music, training, whatever.

They charge no markup on your content, they make up their end on shipping with a reasonable shipping/handling fee.

Check out the FAQ on their site.

They don't officially launch for a couple more weeks, so give'em a little time/space in the meantime.

It sounds like a pretty good deal, I'm considering using it for some of my own stuff. The only thing I don't see (yet) that I'd like to is an option for faster delivery services.

-mike

Labels: distribution, DIY, online content service

(click the picture to load video)

Hey all -

I've been back a few days but trying to catch up on my world. Here (finally) is the video I shot of the distribution/acquisition rights panel that Scott Kirsner (of CinemaTech blog fame) moderated. Officially, it was titled "Rights Licensing in the New Era of Distribution."

This is a punt posting of what I saw one day at Sundance - I could edit & improve audio, but I don’t have time. I made a quick tour of the New Frontier Lounge noting the vendors present, then went and sat in on the Distribution Rights Panel that was moderated by my fellow blogger and buddy Scott Kirsner. Also on the panel were Orly Ravid of Wolf Releasing, Jean Pruitt of Independent Film & Television Association, Tracey Mercer of Revelation Entertainment & also Clickstar (Morgan Freeman’s distro), David Straus of withoutabox.com, Linda “O”, head of acquisition of shorts and podcasts for Shorts, Intntl.

I shot this using movie mode on my little Canon S450 snapshot camera by holding my arm up for 45 minutes, so pardon the shaky camera work. I got the first 35 or so minutes than ran out of room on my camera card, purged some stuff and got about 5 more minutes, missing the last 20 minutes or so unfortunately. But there is still much info of interest on here.

Yo Sundance - it was open to the public, so I’m posting this here. If anybody has a problem with that, please let me know, link below.

Enjoy and soak in the info.

NOTE - I posted this article as the video was still uploading and I left the studio - so if the video doesn't show up or is incomplete, check back later. I'll be back in a few hours to check on it and make sure it is working.

-mike

PS - David Straus of withoutabox.com talks about new services they are going to roll out, I'm interviewing him in next few days to get more info on that, will report here about it.

Labels: distribution, festivals, Kirsner, online distribution, Sundance