That's an interestinga rticle and it's good to know that there are alternatives to traditional distribution. The main problem I see are the costs to the filmmaker. After all, a lot of smaller films are self-funded, so the filmmakers have usually racked up considerable debt just to get their films made.
#
posted by Josh Boelter @ 3/30/2006 1:24 PM
You are correct in that many of these alternatives stick additional costs to the filmmakers. I will say, however, that due to the inequalities involved in the nature of film financing, distribution costs are always deducted from a film's revenues before the producer/film investors get paid. So, if a filmmaker included some money earmarked for self-distribution in his/her financing proposal, this money would recoup first, making it a safer part of the investment. And, it might help leverage other revenues. So, in short, if a filmmaker is raising $1 million for a film, I don't think it's a bad idea to try to raise $1.2 million and to have that extra $200,000 earmarked for a self of co-distribution venture if the film is not initially picked up.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 3/30/2006 2:23 PM
Good link Scott. '06 is the year 1 of (larger scale, more participants) DIY distro for the US indie film scene, so it seems.
Over at my blog Filmmaking for the Poor we are discussing the possibility of film festival screenings becoming another source of some revenue for indie filmmakers. http://www.filmmakingforthepoor.blogspot.com/
Sujewa
*******
#
posted by The Sujewa @ 3/30/2006 2:43 PM
This is an important discussion. My experience with my doc 51 Birch Street has been that the b.o. expectations of bigger distribs have shot sky high (thank you, penguins). And, for smaller ones, there are now so many films out there they can be very picky. So they've all become far more risk averse. If you financed your film in part from tv money and have your U.S. tv sale tied up, it's particularly problematic.
And unless you get a big guarantee, do you really want to give away those valuable tv, dvd and v.o.d. rights for 10 years or more? So "hybrid" distribution (nice term) is a very viable alternative.
But, holy crap, raising money for distribution is hell. We barely raised enough to finish the film, then premiered in Toronto 3 days later! It's exhausting and incredibly frustrating, and almost every filmmaker I've encountered on the festival circuit is going through it.
#
posted by Doug Block @ 3/30/2006 3:33 PM
Hi Doug, thanks for posting here. Yeah, raising money after the fact is hell, and you're doing it in a state of some kind of emotional distress following your film getting passed on. What I'm suggesting is building in a small amount of P and A money into the initial investment so at least you have some options and can attrack either a "hybrid" deal or perhaps a co-venture with a company that likes your film but would like it more if their P&A money wasn't at risk.
And Sujewa, I'm following your festival discussion -- it's a great group of comments. I'm going to link to it on the blog.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 3/30/2006 10:59 PM
Scott, it's very good advice for anyone making a fiction film and going the investor route. But being as I make docs, if I can raise enough money to simply get the thing made I'm pretty fortunate. And since it's impractical to go the investor route for 98% of docs, I generally cobble together a bunch of broadcasters, who aren't thrilled that I'm doing theatrical distribution at all. So another 20% for P&A is smart in theory but isn't usually a real world option.
#
posted by Doug Block @ 3/31/2006 5:08 PM
