If you regularly read anything I post, you’ll see a repeated theme of really stupid business practices of the film industry from the fantasy value SAG puts on their union talent to any number of ridiculously inept decisions “experts in charge” like to make that are sure to self-destruct their own projects.
The latest example of this came out of a discussion I had with a very knowledgeable individual of which I hope we can work together in the future, regarding the concept of studio backed projects. Now if a studio is dumping 100’s of millions of dollars into a project, they can pretty much do what they want. If they are investing in a low budget feature under $2M, should they stick to the same criteria of marketing that film as they would deploy as with a big budget project?
Their logic being that if you advertise or post material about the project, you are ruining the surprise for the audience and by the time the film is released, everyone will already have seen your film and not want to go see it in the theaters, if they even manage to get it into a minimum 1,300 screens out of the 39,000 screens across America. If you do try and garner buzz and excitement for your film, they can charge you with breach of contract and order you to pay back their investment as well as refusing to distribute your film. That seems a little harsh for trying to tell the general public about your work.
So let’s do the numbers on this. The standard turnaround time for a film, not counting all the pre-production negotiations that have nothing to do with the film, is consistently quoted as 18 months from first day of principle shooting to the release date. If your film is under a $2M budget, chances are you are fortunate enough to find SAG talent that has either been off the public radar for awhile or is relatively new to the public experiencing their work. So 18 months multiplied by30 days come out to 540 days. Divide that by the runtime of your film, say 90 minutes, and for that 540 days you could release 6 minutes of your film everyday in order for the general public to have seen your entire movie. Trailers and interviews normally don’t run longer that 3 minutes tops so what are studios afraid of? To them it’s better to wait until 3 months before the release to come up with some marketing campaign that has no guarantees as to how many people it will reach or has any accountability to how many people even saw their marketing efforts in the first place. Of course if a movie fails to attract a crowd, it’s not their fault. They have invoices of what they spent and they don’t owe you any kind of refund for their failure. It’s the investors’ fault for not pumping more money into advertising that has proven time and time again over the last 10 years that their marketing model doesn’t work anymore… but pay them anyway because they are the “experts.”
Some of you may be overjoyed that you have a deal with anybody and I don’t blame you. Just be careful that you aren’t signing a cul de sac deal that will suck up all of your resources without giving you a favorable outcome and will only leave you at the bottom of a dry well without a rope to climb out of. they hole they dug for you.
What are your thoughts on this? Are you handcuffed, hands free, or hands on? The difference could cost you millions.
5 people like this
Ive been predicting that for a decade, Dan MaxXx. One of these years, we'll be right.
3 people like this
There's something about a theatrical run that gives a movie more credibility and buzz—it’s like an event that gets people talking. Plus, it makes sense that seeing a film on the big screen creates exc...
Expand commentThere's something about a theatrical run that gives a movie more credibility and buzz—it’s like an event that gets people talking. Plus, it makes sense that seeing a film on the big screen creates excitement and curiosity for when it hits streaming. There are plenty of movies that I would miss entirely if I didn't hear good things about them during their theatrical release.
For indie filmmakers, this feels like a great reminder that a limited theatrical release can really boost a film’s visibility and help it stand out in the crowded streaming space.
3 people like this
Many of the producers from films at Sundance this year told me they are weighing theatrical more heavily than before, Ash.
2 people like this
That’s really exciting to hear, Richard "RB" Botto! Did any of the producers mention specific factors influencing their decision, like audience demand, box office trends, or the impact on distribution...
Expand commentThat’s really exciting to hear, Richard "RB" Botto! Did any of the producers mention specific factors influencing their decision, like audience demand, box office trends, or the impact on distribution deals? I’d love to hear more about their perspective!
2 people like this
As simple as old school economics. More revenue streams, the better. Further, the idea of building eyeballs, branding and, of course, a longer tail for the film is appealing. And why wouldn't it be. Better that than being dumped on a streamer and beholden to an algorithm.