The flaw in the business model has always been on the distribution side. If you look at the top two A24 and Neon, both are under much bigger companies and can absorb heavy losses that a production company can't. That also means they can spend the money on the marketing that a production company can't. So they're capitalized to roll the dice on campaigns that cost 4x the budget of your movie and then deduct it out of your profits . So even a win for them results in very little returning to the producer.
If the production company was expected to market and distribute, I think we'd stand a better chance at it. But so far most aren't capitalized well enough to do that.
Ted- there are some good ideas here. I have worked with a number of PE (private equity) groups over the last 20 years interested in the film business. The hurdle is simple- can one illustrate a possible return of 20% per year ?
That ends up being a very difficult task.
Indie films have always been a cottage industry and now they are really the purview of billionaires and very large Funds. Very large funds with billions or trillions under management like Blackstone have invested billions into productions companies and facilitates. Billionaires are backing several US companies like Neon and Bleeker. They can afford to take a very long view and returns are not really the issue. The amounts are insignificant. Sort of like investing in Bio Tech.
Short of finding your own billionaire it is very difficult to attract smaller but significant pools of money in the $50 mil to $100 mil area.
I liked the label idea but once you cede distribution to someone else, getting a return gets very difficult.
I liked selling the futures of a film maker or group of filmmakers -sort of like backing a boxer-but what a leap of faith for investors and a really tough model to illustrate.
I love your take on these issues. I've been thinking along the same lines for some time, inspired and encouraged by your forthright discussions here and elsewhere. As evidence, I just posted on my Instagram a nascent concept I've been kicking around. Would love your thoughts. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cp2iOnWLpe7/
I love the thoughts of actors taking the initiative for discovery and advancement of first time filmmakers. And the "find them, then keep a tab on them for a while as they grow" seems like a re-imagining of the studio contract system of old, but, without the exploitation or servitude aspects. I could see how such a structure could be implemented with lots of mutual benefit. If it's an actor group, they could find the filmmakers of tomorrow and pledge to offer their acting services for scale, both providing great talent for these first time filmmakers to hone their teeth on (not literally,) as well as giving an immediate boost for marketing and potential pre-sales, if that's ever going to still be a thing. Then, participation of the group can be reduced slowly as the new filmmakers find their feet and voice. (So many mixed metaphors, but, you get where I'm going.)
I can see, once established, reputations growing for audiences to trust, financiers to invest along with and new filmmakers to try new things to be considered for the fold. Just how does one get this off the ground? There was a sort of attempt at this a while back called Project Greenlight. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck were involved for a time. It had the wrong emphases (focusing on the behind the scenes TV show aspects instead of getting the best filmic output,) but it had some high points. But it didn't sustain more than a couple of iterations.
I'm still very interested in seeing where you take these ideas.
Very nice analysis from someone who's been in the trenches. If only more producers did that... I'm glad you hit upon the "limited vision of American features". That's what killed indie for me. There was none of the brio of the British, like Stephen Frears and Hanif Kurushi back in the late '80's. Their films about the city had everyone in them (whites, blacks, immigrants) all arguing about politics and making love when possible. Next to Sammy & Rosie Get Laid, Do The Right Thing is child's play. But then there was John Sayles' City of Hope to tip the scales. Most American indies were like a Coldplay song- dreary, narrow suburban white people. The phrase mumblecore is not flattering.
Yes, having curatorial platforms like labels is a stunning idea. It worked for Motown. And I'm for any investment model that gives me the chance to have a career without insulting me. (I've been insulted enough, thank you). And yes, flare and attitude are what I've been talking about. First off, filmmakers dress dully and are usually too scared or too arrogant to create what in sports they call a 'healthy locker room'. Secondly, many film students and alums are illiterate. I've been around countless filmmakers who never read and/or cringe when you cite a work they haven't read or seen. This makes for the predatory atmosphere on the newbie side of the ledger.
Lastly, while I agree that the "noble failure" is a flag carried by the underdog, it's not the only one and could even be prone to the failure part. Making failure noble requires a discipline many don't have. It's like the Brooklyn Dodgers, who always lost to the Yankees. Yes, they brought in Jackie Robinson and others, but they also abandoned Brooklyn ten years later. My model would be the New England Patriots or Lombardi's Packers. The pursuit of perfection is not a perversion any more than rationalizing a failure as noble. Some are and some aren't. Lombardi once said that "we won't catch perfection, gentlemen, but will grab excellence on the way." Let's call this 'espirit de corps' or aesthetic musculature. Whatever.
I saw this changing audience thirty years ago and wrote accordingly. Perhaps now we Americans can do what the Brits did back then- a three ethnic formula where each has its proper weight and distinction (for better and for worse).
You know, for all the criticism they get, The Asylum has been doing exactly what you propose for 25 years.
I was so excited when you first mentioned to me your idea for a sub-label at Amazon focused on lower budget genre films! Doing (sort of) what the Asylum was doing but at a higher budget & quality level. I'm so bummed that never took off! I've made 4 features but they've all been SO limited in budget and schedule that I don't feel that I've ever had a chance to put my vision on film, so I still feel like a first time filmmaker (only with years of experience and the knowledge to avoid the pitfalls). If you ever find a way to do what you propose, COUNT ME IN! And if I can help in any way...
Feels like you’re speaking right to me, Ted. Thank you for these two posts. It’s lighting the path for me and giving me some good guidance on how to accomplish the goals I have to bring more movies into the world.
Ted, really, you give us all hope and then some, even here at the southern most tip of Africa!! I have shared both these latest posts with my MFA students and they heading into a discussion on this tomorrow led by filmmaker Khalid El Jelailati (indiekhalid) though sadly I got covid this week so I will miss the on campus sessions but will pick up on all next week or so.. I also loved your blog about the need for a committed cinema and I've included that in my PhD proposal - you have inspired me to find the answers on how to build a committed cinema in South Africa - given all our history, given the digital and economic divides but remains the need for great entertainment and for artists to express themselves to jump off cliffs and hope for the best
I would love to understand and tap into the funding mechanism that goes into Political Spending.
So much money is disgorged from wealthy donors into politics it's insane. I've encountered numerous donors who will luxuriate big dollars onto this or that political campaign, but suddenly become pinched to help an independent film or theater project.
It's about voice, isn't it? A donor to a political campaign does so to have a voice in the political issues of the day (and possibly some influence). To be relevant to the times.
However, many indie film festivals (the avenue by which indie films enter the marketplace) seem repelled by political films that might upset their audiences or funders. This is an exact quote I received from a film festival just a couple of weeks ago touting their slate of "feel good films":
"...we told filmmakers not to submit films having to do with COVID or political themes. We figured you get enough of that on TV."
So what happens is that filmmakers cater to what film festivals are programming, right? They don't make political films. And this becomes a disconnect, right? A funder who wants to have a voice in the political culture of the times, to be relevant to the times -- won't be spending their investment on an indie film because it won't be seen at film festivals. Or anywhere. ... Right?
Also curious your thoughts on the new production company Artists Equity founded by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Just raised $100m with a focus on ensuring all artists can make substantial returns if the movie does well? I believe Blumhouse does this as well.
Thanks for this excellent two-parter and all the great work you've done. The blog, your book (just finished; it's top notch) and of course all the amazing films you've produced. You are a force!
This article from Slated shows the success rate of backing first time directors:
Hey Ted - I'm wondering how your idea above about slates interacts with your thoughts in this article: https://tedhope.substack.com/p/the-challenges-of-a-producers-collective about the potential issues with these "producer's collectives" which, in effect, would operate more or less like slates, right? Would love to know your thoughts.
I have had some very interesting experiences in the world of independent film. It might be the reason why I think differently than 99.9% of those in the business. I would love to know more about your experiences in the industry. One needs to know not only who one is, but where one has been, to know how to get to where one wants to be. Rather than tell the story of my life, I am sharing a recent Podcast Interview I did with A.J. Dean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ohmTp0eFQI
The flaw in the business model has always been on the distribution side. If you look at the top two A24 and Neon, both are under much bigger companies and can absorb heavy losses that a production company can't. That also means they can spend the money on the marketing that a production company can't. So they're capitalized to roll the dice on campaigns that cost 4x the budget of your movie and then deduct it out of your profits . So even a win for them results in very little returning to the producer.
If the production company was expected to market and distribute, I think we'd stand a better chance at it. But so far most aren't capitalized well enough to do that.
Ted- there are some good ideas here. I have worked with a number of PE (private equity) groups over the last 20 years interested in the film business. The hurdle is simple- can one illustrate a possible return of 20% per year ?
That ends up being a very difficult task.
Indie films have always been a cottage industry and now they are really the purview of billionaires and very large Funds. Very large funds with billions or trillions under management like Blackstone have invested billions into productions companies and facilitates. Billionaires are backing several US companies like Neon and Bleeker. They can afford to take a very long view and returns are not really the issue. The amounts are insignificant. Sort of like investing in Bio Tech.
Short of finding your own billionaire it is very difficult to attract smaller but significant pools of money in the $50 mil to $100 mil area.
I liked the label idea but once you cede distribution to someone else, getting a return gets very difficult.
I liked selling the futures of a film maker or group of filmmakers -sort of like backing a boxer-but what a leap of faith for investors and a really tough model to illustrate.
I wish I were 60 instead of 80-have fun !
I love your take on these issues. I've been thinking along the same lines for some time, inspired and encouraged by your forthright discussions here and elsewhere. As evidence, I just posted on my Instagram a nascent concept I've been kicking around. Would love your thoughts. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cp2iOnWLpe7/
I love the thoughts of actors taking the initiative for discovery and advancement of first time filmmakers. And the "find them, then keep a tab on them for a while as they grow" seems like a re-imagining of the studio contract system of old, but, without the exploitation or servitude aspects. I could see how such a structure could be implemented with lots of mutual benefit. If it's an actor group, they could find the filmmakers of tomorrow and pledge to offer their acting services for scale, both providing great talent for these first time filmmakers to hone their teeth on (not literally,) as well as giving an immediate boost for marketing and potential pre-sales, if that's ever going to still be a thing. Then, participation of the group can be reduced slowly as the new filmmakers find their feet and voice. (So many mixed metaphors, but, you get where I'm going.)
I can see, once established, reputations growing for audiences to trust, financiers to invest along with and new filmmakers to try new things to be considered for the fold. Just how does one get this off the ground? There was a sort of attempt at this a while back called Project Greenlight. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck were involved for a time. It had the wrong emphases (focusing on the behind the scenes TV show aspects instead of getting the best filmic output,) but it had some high points. But it didn't sustain more than a couple of iterations.
I'm still very interested in seeing where you take these ideas.
Very nice analysis from someone who's been in the trenches. If only more producers did that... I'm glad you hit upon the "limited vision of American features". That's what killed indie for me. There was none of the brio of the British, like Stephen Frears and Hanif Kurushi back in the late '80's. Their films about the city had everyone in them (whites, blacks, immigrants) all arguing about politics and making love when possible. Next to Sammy & Rosie Get Laid, Do The Right Thing is child's play. But then there was John Sayles' City of Hope to tip the scales. Most American indies were like a Coldplay song- dreary, narrow suburban white people. The phrase mumblecore is not flattering.
Yes, having curatorial platforms like labels is a stunning idea. It worked for Motown. And I'm for any investment model that gives me the chance to have a career without insulting me. (I've been insulted enough, thank you). And yes, flare and attitude are what I've been talking about. First off, filmmakers dress dully and are usually too scared or too arrogant to create what in sports they call a 'healthy locker room'. Secondly, many film students and alums are illiterate. I've been around countless filmmakers who never read and/or cringe when you cite a work they haven't read or seen. This makes for the predatory atmosphere on the newbie side of the ledger.
Lastly, while I agree that the "noble failure" is a flag carried by the underdog, it's not the only one and could even be prone to the failure part. Making failure noble requires a discipline many don't have. It's like the Brooklyn Dodgers, who always lost to the Yankees. Yes, they brought in Jackie Robinson and others, but they also abandoned Brooklyn ten years later. My model would be the New England Patriots or Lombardi's Packers. The pursuit of perfection is not a perversion any more than rationalizing a failure as noble. Some are and some aren't. Lombardi once said that "we won't catch perfection, gentlemen, but will grab excellence on the way." Let's call this 'espirit de corps' or aesthetic musculature. Whatever.
I saw this changing audience thirty years ago and wrote accordingly. Perhaps now we Americans can do what the Brits did back then- a three ethnic formula where each has its proper weight and distinction (for better and for worse).
You know, for all the criticism they get, The Asylum has been doing exactly what you propose for 25 years.
I was so excited when you first mentioned to me your idea for a sub-label at Amazon focused on lower budget genre films! Doing (sort of) what the Asylum was doing but at a higher budget & quality level. I'm so bummed that never took off! I've made 4 features but they've all been SO limited in budget and schedule that I don't feel that I've ever had a chance to put my vision on film, so I still feel like a first time filmmaker (only with years of experience and the knowledge to avoid the pitfalls). If you ever find a way to do what you propose, COUNT ME IN! And if I can help in any way...
Feels like you’re speaking right to me, Ted. Thank you for these two posts. It’s lighting the path for me and giving me some good guidance on how to accomplish the goals I have to bring more movies into the world.
Ted, really, you give us all hope and then some, even here at the southern most tip of Africa!! I have shared both these latest posts with my MFA students and they heading into a discussion on this tomorrow led by filmmaker Khalid El Jelailati (indiekhalid) though sadly I got covid this week so I will miss the on campus sessions but will pick up on all next week or so.. I also loved your blog about the need for a committed cinema and I've included that in my PhD proposal - you have inspired me to find the answers on how to build a committed cinema in South Africa - given all our history, given the digital and economic divides but remains the need for great entertainment and for artists to express themselves to jump off cliffs and hope for the best
I would love to understand and tap into the funding mechanism that goes into Political Spending.
So much money is disgorged from wealthy donors into politics it's insane. I've encountered numerous donors who will luxuriate big dollars onto this or that political campaign, but suddenly become pinched to help an independent film or theater project.
It's about voice, isn't it? A donor to a political campaign does so to have a voice in the political issues of the day (and possibly some influence). To be relevant to the times.
However, many indie film festivals (the avenue by which indie films enter the marketplace) seem repelled by political films that might upset their audiences or funders. This is an exact quote I received from a film festival just a couple of weeks ago touting their slate of "feel good films":
"...we told filmmakers not to submit films having to do with COVID or political themes. We figured you get enough of that on TV."
So what happens is that filmmakers cater to what film festivals are programming, right? They don't make political films. And this becomes a disconnect, right? A funder who wants to have a voice in the political culture of the times, to be relevant to the times -- won't be spending their investment on an indie film because it won't be seen at film festivals. Or anywhere. ... Right?
Hi Ted,
Also curious your thoughts on the new production company Artists Equity founded by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Just raised $100m with a focus on ensuring all artists can make substantial returns if the movie does well? I believe Blumhouse does this as well.
Hi Ted,
Thanks for this excellent two-parter and all the great work you've done. The blog, your book (just finished; it's top notch) and of course all the amazing films you've produced. You are a force!
This article from Slated shows the success rate of backing first time directors:
https://filmonomics.slated.com/beginners-luck-ec33f8304c41
Hey Ted - I'm wondering how your idea above about slates interacts with your thoughts in this article: https://tedhope.substack.com/p/the-challenges-of-a-producers-collective about the potential issues with these "producer's collectives" which, in effect, would operate more or less like slates, right? Would love to know your thoughts.
I have had some very interesting experiences in the world of independent film. It might be the reason why I think differently than 99.9% of those in the business. I would love to know more about your experiences in the industry. One needs to know not only who one is, but where one has been, to know how to get to where one wants to be. Rather than tell the story of my life, I am sharing a recent Podcast Interview I did with A.J. Dean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ohmTp0eFQI