# Sorry, but I have to vent!



## Revphase (Oct 15, 2012)

So I recently spoke with a director who explained to me that his last movie cost $100. It had 30 actors, special fx makeup, and a fully "orchestral" score. NOBODY got paid.

Well, actually one actress got paid $100 to take her clothes off.

I happen to know one of the lead actors on the film, a seasoned indie actor, and HE didn't get paid.

After thinking about this for a while, I realized what really bothers me about this.

He is basically getting a product that he can sell and make money from, and has no problem saying he can't pay anything.

I ALWAYS pay for talent. If I make money fine, if I lose money that's my problem, but the talent (in my case vocal and some instrumental) ALWAYS gets paid at the session.

What bothers me more is that this is FAR from an isolated case! 

I really can't see how we can build a career while on a race to the bottom where everyone wants to do things for nothing.

I know flavors of this topic have been done to death, but sometimes, ya gotta vent!!

Rev


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 15, 2012)

This is what people do who want credit and experience, no matter what it costs them personally.


----------



## Revphase (Oct 15, 2012)

I know, and I have done my share of freebies. 

But there comes a time when you want to make money, and if you charge 5k for a fully orchestrated feature they look at you cross-eyed.

I guess you have to think of the industry in strata. Where in order to make more you have to let go of the lower-paying levels to go after higher-paying jobs.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 15, 2012)

At some point things get so low that you just have to say "no mas".


----------



## wst3 (Oct 15, 2012)

I have to agree with the premise of the rant...

It is true that you do not start out getting big bucks for big projects. But you don't have to take crap work, or line someone else's pockets to earn credits. 

There are uncountable projects out there where you may not get paid much, but you can be treated fairly, and maybe help someone out, and earn a credit.

The "race to the bottom" (I do love that phrase) doesn't have to involve everyone... we still have choices.


----------



## sluggo (Oct 15, 2012)

Yeh, pretty simple situation. Don't do it. This film will go nowhere.


----------



## midphase (Oct 15, 2012)

Revphase @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> So I recently spoke with a director who explained to me that his last movie cost $100. It had 30 actors, special fx makeup, and a fully "orchestral" score. NOBODY got paid.



Let me try to shed a bit of light on this since I'm actually going through this process right now (except from the other side).

First of all, are we talking about a feature film? Because if it's a feature, and hence the (slim) possibility for monetization of the film then ok...but if it's a short film, I can assure you that there is practically no monetization possibilities aside from maybe some ad revenue from YouTube and the like.

Secondly, no film costs only $100, there are costs which can't be circumvented no matter how tiny the production. You have to fee the crew and cast, 30 actors plus at least 10 other people on the set, that's a lot of mouths to feed. If we're talking feature, then it's going to be at least 2-3 weeks worth of meals, we're talking thousands.

You also have insurance costs, transportation, walkie talkies, these are the basics. Special FX makeup can be quite a bit too, even if all you're paying is the latex and "kit fee" same with wardrobe which I assure you almost nobody wants to do for free.

Grips and Electric guys almost never work for free, there is no reason for them to, it's a shitty job. If you can get a gaffer to work for free, it would be for 1 day max.

What I'm getting to is that making films requires money, more than $100. My last short film required a shit-ton of freebees and hefty favors from a network of people that I've done favors to many times before. I still ended up spending about $7000 for what is basically an 8 minute film (10 with credits) which was shot over a week-end.

One last point, if your guy's film had any half decent actors in the cast (i.e. anyone not straight out of school), he probably had to go SAG/AFTRA. What that means is that before he can do anything with the film (essentially anything that's not a film festival or a private screening) he will have to pay out the actors contracts. With 30 actors he's looking at close to $10k all inclusive on a feature. Also, even if not all the actors were SAG, they still all have to be compensated just the same.

Hope this sheds a bit of light on some stuff, I'll pick it up later with some opinions on why I don't think what your buddy is trying to do is necessarily evil, and why you should walk away nonetheless.


----------



## TGV (Oct 16, 2012)

I made some music for a film made by amateurs (myself included) or unemployed, starting professionals, a "hutspot" Western, mostly for fun and a bit for learning and credit. The director/producer is never ever going to get back his investment, even though he got the animals for free, the clothing, the lighting, etc.

On the other hand, this industry (music for tv/film) is not really clean either. I think it was Paul Farrer (of "Weakest Link" fame) who wrote in a column in SOS magazine that he's waiting for the day that you have to pay money to get your music in a TV show or movie. He calls it "Negative Music Commissioning Budget": so many people desperate to get in, and so little appreciation of good craftsmanship. You can read it here: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may12/a ... s-0512.htm
His other columns are also freely available on the same web site.


----------



## Revphase (Oct 16, 2012)

Midphase,

You make some very good points.

To shed a little more light on the situation, he is the cameraman (pro-videographer by day), "co-producer" (friend) does light, another does sound. He edited the film at home on a Mac.

Wife cooks for all (I understand that costs money).

Makeup is done by my actor friend (the unpaid lead) at no cost. Come to think of it there really wasn't much gore in the film at all.

All actors brought their own clothing. 

The one interesting thing is that he ran into a lot of people quitting or not showing up because there was really no incentive to do so other than credit. One supporting character had to be recast THREE TIMES!!!

I must say, that for the effort, everyone pulled together and made an enjoyable feature (about an hour and a half in length). It has gone to his distributor, who he claims hasn't paid him for his last 3 movies. Why he would continue with that distro is beyond me.

Also, do you know if having a film on Netflix (both on demand and DVD) pays royalties to the producers? Because he currently has his last one on there.

I also see how you can easily spend 7k on a short. I scored a short that is only going to underground festivals (very extreme) and that cost 10K, but it was shot on 35mm film and was around a half hour long which I understand raises the cost significantly. 

Rev


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 16, 2012)

TBH Rev, if he's done this three times, cast and crew don't show up and not paying anyone a dime... it feels more like a hobby film than a serious one. I've made a low budget movie, all done for the love of it etc, but we did pay for food, transport etc, and did everything we could to make sure that people actually had an ok time on it (it had a real labour of love story behind it too, which people I think invested in). It did cost us a few grand, even allowing for massive numbers of favours.

I think even on microbudget it is important to treat everyone well, even if you can't pay them. It'll mean raising some cash, and that's a good thing - it shows you are serious about it. I really support microbudget filmmakers if they do it as decently as they are able, treat everyone with respect, feed and transport them and are completely upfront with everyone regarding no pay.

Conversely, someone asked me to score their low budget film. After a rough version, I got some musicians in who took out quite a bit of their time. I sent it off, and the person never even bothered to reply. Needless to say, I shan't ever work with him again. How you treat people I believe is always important - for microbudget, it is critical.


----------



## midphase (Oct 16, 2012)

FYI, Netflix pays a flat rate of $2000 for streaming rights. Bigger studios with bigger films are able to negotiate per-view rates which end up being considerably more lucrative, but the majority of the content on Netflix falls in the low budget indie category which gets the flat fee.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2012)

Revphase @ Tue Oct 16 said:


> Midphase,
> 
> You make some very good points.
> 
> ...



Run away. Don't walk.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 16, 2012)

I've always worked on films that can't pay - just finished one, and am in the middle of another. But you have to love the film and the people you work with. A credit on an unsuccessful film is pretty worthless. But license your music to the film, keep all your publishing and make sure you have a good back-end participation deal.
Great movies are made by passionate filmmakers. The trick is to find the smart ones. Neither Rainman, Driving Miss Daisy or Thelma and Louise looked like blockbusters on the page. Nor did 'The Ring'. But they worked out. 'Frost Nixon' wasn't much of a commercial proposition, but we are all proud of it. 'As good as it gets' had the director come back to my agent after the movie was out and a success and offered me my full fee... It's just important to work with good people.
Just a couple of thoughts from the jungle...
Hz


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 16, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 16 said:


> I've always worked on films that can't pay - just finished one, and am in the middle of another. But you have to love the film and the people you work with. A credit on an unsuccessful film is pretty worthless. But license your music to the film, keep all your publishing and make sure you have a good back-end participation deal.
> Great movies are made by passionate filmmakers. The trick is to find the smart ones. Neither Rainman, Driving Miss Daisy or Thelma and Louise looked like blockbusters on the page. Nor did 'The Ring'. But they worked out. 'Frost Nixon' wasn't much of a commercial proposition, but we are all proud of it. 'As good as it gets' had the director come back to my agent after the movie was out and a success and offered me my full fee... It's just important to work with good people.
> Just a couple of thoughts from the jungle...
> Hz



Wow. Different end of the spectrum, but the same deal I guess. If I love an idea and the people are decent... they can have me!


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 16, 2012)

midphase @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> You have to fee the crew and cast, 30 actors plus at least 10 other people on the set


I've heard of "Pay to Play" at clubs on the Sunset Strip, but this sounds even _more_ profitable! :mrgreen: 

One thing I'll add to Kays' post is that his film turned out to be excellent. Seriously one of the best shorts I've ever seen. (And I've seen plenty.) Yes, Kays is a friend of mine, but it's still true.

The relevance of that is that if it cost Kays $7k to make an 8-minute film, and knowing Kays was as efficient with his money as possible, then that's sort of a starting place for budgets of films that would be worth considering working on for free. After all, it's not the "working for free" that's the bad part, it's the "working for free on a mediocre film" that's the bad part. If you're going to work for free, then then it better be for a film that's expected to be excellent, otherwise what's the point?

You don't want to work on a 90-minute film that cost $100, because *too* many corners had to have been cut to get the budget that low. I'll happily work for free, and have many times, if a friend is serious. But $100 isn't serious.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2012)

The only thing that is discouraging me these days is the direct to Netflix films. Digital downloads imo are ruining the industry. Use to be that me and my team of filmmakers that I worked for would be pushing for theatrical releases, or Cable releases ect... Now, I just run into too many people pushing for amazon.com streaming. It's discouraged me, because, 1) nobody will ever see it and 2) There's no way to make back your money.

That being said though, I'm not advocating never do a project for free. I did a project for no money up front, they got distribution and they paid me on the back end. But, It was a project I believed in. I really liked the film.

To me it just didn't seem like the original poster really believes in this film.

Thoughts from the other side of the jungle.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 16, 2012)

> But license your music to the film, keep all your publishing and make sure you have a good back-end participation deal. Great movies are made by passionate filmmakers. The trick is to find the smart ones.



Know your business. 

Thanks, Hans!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 16, 2012)

> Let me try to shed a bit of light on this since I'm actually going through this process right now (except from the other side).



Good for you, Kays!


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 16, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 16 said:


> I've always worked on films that can't pay - just finished one, and am in the middle of another. But you have to love the film and the people you work with. A credit on an unsuccessful film is pretty worthless. But license your music to the film, keep all your publishing and make sure you have a good back-end participation deal.
> Great movies are made by passionate filmmakers. The trick is to find the smart ones. Neither Rainman, Driving Miss Daisy or Thelma and Louise looked like blockbusters on the page. Nor did 'The Ring'. But they worked out. 'Frost Nixon' wasn't much of a commercial proposition, but we are all proud of it. 'As good as it gets' had the director come back to my agent after the movie was out and a success and offered me my full fee... It's just important to work with good people.
> Just a couple of thoughts from the jungle...
> Hz



i agree. although the examples are bit over my level. 

i do freebies for video editors that work in the same studio i work at. its their personal projects. their own scripts or their roomates scripts. 

ive met several new people this way that lead to paying jobs. new friends etc. 

of course there are some that take advantage and projects that lead no where but sometimes you land a gig. same way as any gig really, except its shorter and you have to do it more often. 

is finding that person who you'll ride the elevator upstairs with.


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 16, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Oct 16 said:


> > But license your music to the film, keep all your publishing and make sure you have a good back-end participation deal. Great movies are made by passionate filmmakers. The trick is to find the smart ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



fuk! i keep saying that around here all the time. many dont understand it, ignore my comment or just dont believe it. but its the best imo for low budget movies. keep the publishing and if you can reuse it somwhere else then even better. 

the main problem with this ive encounter is only that the lawyers worry you would suddenly say... i dont want to license it to russia cause they not cool or not anymore anywhere because its mine and im an individual that who knows... im crazy like that. 

but there are ways around it. exclusivity, exclusivity for X amount of years. worldwide etc. mainly a trust thing also. its also putting the lawyers to work.. 
and those guys DO charge and a LOT.


----------



## midphase (Oct 17, 2012)

Ok, let me add some more thoughts to this conversation like I said I would.

The film industry is changing, permanently. This has got little to do with the recession, and a lot to do with the evolution in the way we consume content...so to those who keep on maintaining that it's all cyclical and that it's going to swing back to the way it was any minute now, I don't think you're seeing the big picture.

Back in the "old days", making a film was a major financial undertaking no matter how resourceful you could be. This limited the supply and kept the "temptation" for professionals to do freebees in check.

As composers, we tend to be sheltered away from the business realities of making pictures and this can distort our perception of the way things actually are...so let's try to fix that:

In the past 20 years (but most critically in the past 10) we have seen an unbelievable increase in the production of indie films. The most recent edition of Sundance received over 6000 feature film submissions...think about that for a second -- one would have to consume 16 feature films a day, every day for an entire year to watch all of that content!

The market is saturated, and it is the saturation among other things which has created this "crisis" in the film industry (among other factors). The most important factor at work here is that feature films are not valued by distributors in the same way that they once were.

The larger picture is that making films, while always having been a risky financial venture, is now almost guaranteed to be a bad investment. The solution? Lower the budgets, adjust the entry fee so that even a "bad" distribution deal will at least break even for the investor.

I can't begin to stress how poor of a strategy this is, but it's extremely difficult if not impossible to stop the creative drive of individuals...as we all know only too well.

The result is a race to the bottom which has seen budgets in the independent film community plummet. Dropping budgets affect everyone, but not equally. There are jobs which are very appealing and where the principals are willing to drop their rate, and jobs which aren't. The former are directors, actors, cinematographers, editors (sometimes), and music composers (all the time). The latter are grips, electric, wardrobe, make up, transportation, rentals, art department, stunts, vfx (although it's been inching closer to the other side), camera, production, etc....you get the idea.

In my opinion, independent film making is becoming the new theatre. What I mean is that we accept live theatre as being an art form which is created by passionate individuals who most of the time volunteer their talents to create art for the sake of art. Most theaters that I know are barely able to stay open, nonetheless they produce play after play with undeterred drive. They rely heavily on the kindness of strangers (both financially and talent-wise).

Like it or not, I see independent films are moving toward a very similar path. Watch for the establishment of non-profit film production studios in the future. Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are definite indicators of this new mindset.

So where does that leave the original poster? Art for the sake of art requires a collaborative team where everyone is on the same page. The director who created a feature film for $100 was able to find that team. As composers we need to be honest with ourselves and make the determination as to where we stand in regards to that mindset. Some of us (many in fact) will determine that we'd rather create music than not, and accept the terms of the deal (i.e. little to no pay). Some of us (too few unfortunately) will determine that we'd rather not work rather than work for free, and will walk away.

Since putting myself in the director's chair, I have much more understanding and respect for both sides. One of the things that I stress to everyone whom I approach to work on my film, is that they must get something out of the project. It doesn't have to be monetary, but it has to be something (artistic satisfaction, footage for their reel, experience, credits , free food...something!). If I sense that the match is not there, I prefer not to have that person on my team, and I urge them to be honest with me and with themselves and walk away.

So in conclusion, you have to ask yourself whether scoring this particular film appeals to you in such a way as to overcome the lack of money...or not. If the answer is no, then walk away and don't look back. However do know that in my opinion this type of independent filmmaking is quickly becoming the "new normal" and if you're expecting to have a financially rewarding career as a composer scoring independent films, you might want to re-evaluate. Then again I've been wrong before...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 17, 2012)

Great post, Kays.


----------



## KEnK (Oct 17, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> ...Some of us (many in fact) will determine that we'd rather create music than not, and accept the terms of the deal (i.e. little to no pay). Some of us (too few unfortunately) will determine that we'd rather not work rather than work for free, and will walk away...
> 
> ...So in conclusion, you have to ask yourself whether scoring this particular film appeals to you in such a way as to overcome the lack of money...or not. If the answer is no, then walk away and don't look back. However do know that in my opinion this type of independent filmmaking is quickly becoming the "new normal" and if you're expecting to have a financially rewarding career as a composer scoring independent films, you might want to re-evaluate. Then again I've been wrong before...


What's being said here is that Music is Finished.
Sadly, I came to that conclusion a long time ago.

I still make "art" but I prefer to let almost no one hear it now.

That's my absurd revenge. :roll: 

k


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 17, 2012)

Great post, Kays!

It's still hard to believe (although I believe it) that your film cost $7,000. Everyone here should see it (and hear it). If that's what can be pulled together for such a tiny amount then it seems like a race to the bottom is a good thing creatively for independent film as to let just the ideas and execution be the sole criteria as opposed to advertising, hype, stars, etc. (Although, how will the grips, vfx, etc get paid...?)


----------



## rgames (Oct 17, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> In my opinion, independent film making is becoming the new theatre.


That's a good analogy but it misses one important point: there's no "TheaterFlix".

Live theater is, well, live, so you can't set up a website that magically and instantly delivers you to your choice of live theater for $14 a month.

The marginal cost of streaming one more indie film is near-zero for NetFlix, so they have no incentive not to do so. That ease of access ensures that the indie film market will always be much more saturated than that for live theater.

Regarding working films for free, I did it for a few years but never got involved with a decent production. There was one short that was promising but it never went anywhere.

So I quit trying to do films 

rgames


----------



## sluggo (Oct 17, 2012)

While Hans is absolutely spot on about licensing your music instead of giving it away just know that there are some outfits you just don't want to be a part of regardless and this is one of them... you said:

"It has gone to his distributor, who he claims hasn't paid him for his last 3 movies. Why he would continue with that distro is beyond me. "

(I have seen this scenario play out before. It cost me once, and I vowed to never be a part of anything like it again. No regrets, and I'm still working exclusively as a composer.)

Producer says the distributor screwed him and that's why no one can get paid. 

As a friend of mine once said to a car dealer "Your profit is none of my concern."

So...you are either working for a crook, or an idiot. 

Like Hans said, find the smart ones.


----------



## YuHirà (Oct 17, 2012)

Hi everyone,

There's a difference, imho, between a project we make for free, and a project that can't pay. And actually, the post of HZ is not really clear about that.

When you work for free, you don't have any budget at all. THe producer does not invest any money for the music, as it does not worth it. Often, it's "because [they] spent all the money for the shooting".

On a low budget film, a project that can't pay can mean: either you don't cover your costs, or your budget cover them but you are not paid. Concerning Hans, I'm pretty sure that it would be a big budget for us (but I read that he composed "An Everlasting Piece" for about 1 $). I prefer a project that can't pay because I know that the producer made everything he could to pay the music, than a project wich is for free because a producer didn't manage to deal with his budget. In this case, you feel that you are working with someone who know the value of your work.

But, in the same time, I really like the adage: "Work for free, work for full price, but don't work for cheap" :D 

So, it depends on the film. There are a few filmakers who deserve a work for free. Just because you feel that they are respectful and that their project is worth it. Anyway, I agree with Gsilberts: if we are not paid the full price, we have to keep the publishing. The directors/producers have to understand that exclusivity has a price. If you don't have any money to pay it, you have to accept that the music will be re-used in the future for an other project. It's obvious, however we have to remind it to our "employers", which unfortunately tells a lot about the economic situation... Actually I think that any free work should have a kind of compensation.

By the way, as far as I'm concerned, I don't believe in back-end participation deals for short movies, especially in France (it's very difficult here not to pay the crew on a feature film because of the CNC rules). These incomes are incredibly low (a few hundred euros).

Besides, I read Midphase's post but I'm still concerned about the means we get from the production. Most of the time, we need musicians to make good music. When you work for free, you have to spend energy to negociate the rates of the recording studio to get a live music, and you feel guilty to call your friends to record your music. You lose a lot of time and energy by doing this! And you always have the feeling not to do your best.

I'm maybe completely wrong but if you want to make art / to make a good music, I think that it's difficult to make it without money...

So, I don't know how to manage this...knowing that what Midphase wrote about the situation seems totally true.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 17, 2012)

Thanks for a very informative thread, it's spookily similar in many ways to the mindset people were expressing some 15 years ago when I walked away from music the first time.

My only real concern is that I participate as a shareholder in any project (film or otherwise). If it makes money it needs to repay those who contributed, if it doesn't then we all shared the risk. If I can avoid blatant exploitation then I'm happy, that simple.


----------



## Revphase (Oct 17, 2012)

Midphase,

I really appreciate you're additional comments, and everyone else's as well.

I love this site!

I absolutely agree that we have a "new normal" in film music and indie in particular.

You know, I look at someone like Richard Band as a role model. 

One reason is I love his music, much of it I find very will written and orchestrated.

But the other reason is that he was able to make a career of bringing "class" to B movies.

I don't know if anyone, no matter how talented they are will ever be able to make a career out of indie as he did.

I know he had music in the Gratis Music royalty free library, and he also has tracks in SmartSound "Scoring Suites".

Given that budgets are so low, and back-end deals are only as good as how well the film does, perhaps royalty-free "Scoring Suites" is a possible way to earn money from the "new normal".

rev


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 17, 2012)

Film scoring for studio films doesn't look so promising either. I swear half the scripts I read now are found footage which often has no score.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 18, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Thu Oct 18 said:


> Film scoring for studio films doesn't look so promising either. I swear half the scripts I read now are found footage which often has no score.



Funny you should say that. Mark Kermode, BBC film critic, on last week's film review programme - "I never want to see another found footage film as long as I live".


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 18, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Oct 18 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu Oct 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Film scoring for studio films doesn't look so promising either. I swear half the scripts I read now are found footage which often has no score.
> ...



Heh, neither do I. Right now it's mostly contained to horror but watch as it invades other genres. "Lord Vader, please, if you could just stop filming for 5 minutes! ewoks have gotten into the reactor core!"


----------



## Mike Marino (Oct 18, 2012)

Quick sidebar: what's a "found footage film?"


----------



## jleckie (Oct 18, 2012)

Blair witch I guess.


----------



## midphase (Oct 18, 2012)

Anything shot in 1st person where it is presumed that what you're watching really happened and the footage was located after the fact to make sense of the events.

Paranormal Activity, Cloverfield, Chronicle, etc.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 18, 2012)

> As composers, we tend to be sheltered away from the business realities of making pictures and this can distort our perception of the way things actually are...



This is a personal choice.


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Oct 18, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> The most recent edition of Sundance received over 6000 feature film submissions...think about that for a second -- one would have to consume 16 feature films a day, every day for an entire year to watch all of that content!



That's strange because when you ask people what's up in the theaters they say "nothing" most of the time. 6000 films no one wants to see. I have a feeling that here in Europe a lot of productions are made for the aid money and commercial success is not even on the list...so working for free would only make sense when you work with students, which I did and made great experiences with real orchestra recordings in Babelsberg!


----------



## impressions (Oct 19, 2012)

I agree with Adnreas on this.
despite the amount of films, i haven't heard of any financial successes in the indie industry, alot of prestige and fame maybe.
and i wouldn't call HZ films "indie" at all-at these times they might be considered as such, but they had the full support of HW public relations all over the friggin' world- i remember them when the movies came out, no disrespect intended, good films to say the least.

from what i've heard on famous directors in my country. going to festivals barely pays off even if your film has great acclaim.
and if that's what happening in europe, the only real reason to do them for free is to gain experience and enjoy and of course the chance for people getting to know you. 
claim the acclaim...for free woohoo


----------



## midphase (Oct 19, 2012)

It's not 6000 movies that nobody wants to see. It's probably a solid 5500 films that nobody wants to see, a few hundred "ok" ones that some people would enjoy more than others, and another 50 or so little jewels that unfortunately nobody will ever hear about because big studios don't really make enough money off of them to justify the trouble of distributing them properly.

Studios typically don't push for just any movie that can turn a profit, they prefer movies where the payoff is huge. 007, superheroes, Avatar. Sure, they do pepper their release schedules with some (relatively) smaller titles like your occasional Kevin James light comedies or the occasional mumble core art film which ideally stars the girl from Harry Potter, but for the most part movies which are not tied to a franchise of some sort are becoming rare in the big studio releases.

Movies like the above-mentioned Frost/Nixon primarily happen because a high profile director (Ron Howard in this case) gets behind a project that he believes in. As much as the film was cerebral and artfully handled, I'd be willing to bet the investors who coughed up the $25mil to get it made are probably not too happy with its financials.

But I digress, sometimes money isn't everything. Most art as we know it was created at a financial loss, yet would we be willing to erase some of the greatest artworks in history just because they weren't financially successful at the time?


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 19, 2012)

thats 5500 movie per year! 

check out imdb title per year. iits about that many

im thinkin with so much content it would be easy to establish big and well known distribution channels. 

i know there are but.. still on early stages with too much info and messy. like youtube is way to much to navigate. 


if apple or one of the big tech companies would pick it and create some sort of social rating system like billboard , it would give it enough exposure.


----------



## midphase (Oct 20, 2012)

I think a good way to go would be for the establishment of internet video channels, highly specialized ones. For instance, not just sci/fi, but 1980's British sci/fi. Not just romance, but victorian romance. Then those "channels" could act as tastemakers and filters for their viewership sorting through the clutter and only selecting the best stuff. In a way, the business model is not much different than a restaurant if you think about it.

Only problem is how do you monetize it? Is it strictly advertising based like the old TV model, or is it subscription based like cable? Something else perhaps?

There is some movement to make indie films available to the masses, for instance indieflix.com but it's still a relatively underground site.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 20, 2012)

midphase @ Sat Oct 20 said:


> I think a good way to go would be for the establishment of internet video channels, highly specialized ones. For instance, not just sci/fi, but 1980's British sci/fi. Not just romance, but victorian romance. Then those "channels" could act as tastemakers and filters for their viewership sorting through the clutter and only selecting the best stuff. In a way, the business model is not much different than a restaurant if you think about it.
> 
> Only problem is how do you monetize it? Is it strictly advertising based like the old TV model, or is it subscription based like cable? Something else perhaps?
> 
> There is some movement to make indie films available to the masses, for instance indieflix.com but it's still a relatively underground site.



Since we're now firmly off topic, let's roll with it...

Your idea chimes with the stock advice to microbudget filmmakers, which is to make a solid genre film. Genres, and niche genres, can find an audience, so this fits perfectly. My only problem with it is that I think it'll produce dull films. I've very little interest in standard genre flicks, regardless of the genre.

All I wanna see are good films. I don't care if the budget is 20p or 2 billion - does the story work? Do I care about the characters? Are there any original ideas? One of the best films I saw this year was Martha Marcy May Marlene, a Sundance hit I believe. What genre is that? It could so easily have been a thriller, and if it was it would have ruined it. I heard it - plausibly - described as a horror film, but it would have bombed horribly if it had been marketed as such, as it contained absolutely no genre conventions at all.

What it had was amazing performances, a look at a fascinating subject rarely done well, and a genuinely unsettling creeping atmosphere of dread. It just did its own thing very well, had some integrity, and was able to be heard above the noise and found a modest audience. But - crucially - if at any point they had tried to make it play for a particular audience, the film would have lost everything that made it good.

Here's one thing I'd like to see. With the advent of digital filmmaking and projection, I'd like cinema chains to start Independent Cinema clubs - just as some now have mother and baby clubs, pensioners clubs etc. How it works is very simple - all the films are half price, all the time. The budgets have to be below a certain figure - say $2m. There's no financial reason why you can't even have a different movie on each night in a digital era. In my utopian ideal, films are chosen for distribution on the basis of merit - Odeon has a panel of folks who scour the scene all over the world for interesting gems. If the tickets are half the price, punters would be more likely to, well, take a punt - especially if the reputation of those making the choices was good. It could reinvent cult cinema.


----------



## midphase (Oct 21, 2012)

Hello Guy,

I dig all your ideas, for what it's worth we already have that here in Los Angeles and most cities do have the "arthouse cinema" venue.

I think we'd still need a filtering agent who sorts the good stuff from the bad. People for some reason tend to be considerably more skeptical and picky of smaller art films than they are of big budget blockbusters.

And I am still not convinced that brick and mortar is the way to go for indies, I see the online model working so much better (allowing video format agnosticism). But alas the financial model is still the issue.

Until smaller indies can generate decent financial earnings, I'm afraid budgets will continue to drop and composers will feel the pinch more and more.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 21, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Oct 21 said:


> Hello Guy,
> 
> I dig all your ideas, for what it's worth we already have that here in Los Angeles and most cities do have the "arthouse cinema" venue.
> 
> ...



I agree actually - both would be ideal. I don't think cinema is going anywhere - people still wanna get babystiters and go out for the evening - but home viewing is crucial too. Here Curzon are making a start - they have their theatrical releases day and date with online rental. The problem there is that it's computer-based... it needs to be integrated into people's TVs before that works well. It's happening with Lovefilm etc, but still the platforms (in the UK anyway) aren't broad enough. I'm quite optimistic though that over the coming years, there will be much greater access through people's TVs to independent cinema. Make it a) easy and b) affordable, and it'll be a good start.

As for a quality threshold, maybe the crowd can help take care of that ultimately. IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are far from perfect, but their ratings aren't a bad guide. If you link that into your platform, and that's a great combo. A new low budget release for £3.99 that had high critical / public ratings at the click of a button on your plasma / projector would be a good prospect. Technically we're pretty much there already, but the systems and models are lagging a bit to take best advantage of the new possibilities.

Back to composing... it should be possible to link every download to royalties. It happens now with the BBC's iPlayer. Small amounts, but of course if your little indie was a modest hit around the world, it should add up to something. Suppose there was an agreement that 5% of all low budget rentals went to music rights, and you scored the picture. Let's say the average rental was £4.00, and your film was a minor hit - 100,000 viewings round the world. That's £20k. Not enough to retire on, but I suspect a lot better than what indie composers usually get now.

Personally, I don't see Indie films suddenly offering higher upfront music budgets, and it'll always be a lottery. But if a composer is up for it, it would be nice to know that should your Indie darling make good, you might get a little share of that.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 21, 2012)

Per a recent story in the WSJ, Netflix pays a flat $2000 license per film for streaming. What a composer gets is determined by their contract and how aggressively ASCAP and BMI pursue income for streaming rights.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 21, 2012)

This is the future of theaters: http://moviesinla.org/2012/10/10/ipads- ... r-screens/


o=?


----------

