Distribution

Thanks for sharing!

Great strategy for indie filmmakers, Karen "Kay" Ross!

Hi, Ahi Black. I've never made a film, but you could search for producers, actors, etc. in the Browse Members Section (www.stage32.com/people).

Stage 32 also has in-person Meetups (www.stage32.com/meetups). The Meetups are great for networking. If you don't see a Meetup in your area, you could start one.

It is not completely clear for me how far your project has progressed. But for me, I quickly became used to no-budget filming. My three longest comedies is each slightly more than 100 minutes long. Cost me 3,000 dollars for all three together. So you should be able to film without any producer. And when it comes to distribution, I have simply given away my movies to public access television stations.

Choose a reasonable distro strategy.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LZ9-d987ovij7-QybfU9rp-TkIyVNvQ8Y59O...

Then build an audience for the "crowd" in crowdfunding.

Ahi Black "...the first steps after you make a feature film"? By make, I assume you mean getting to a fine cut stage. The next step is testing the film with an audience. You can absolutely be still working on VFX, Audio mixing and color when you do the test but it's always best to have as much of that done as possible before.

Testing is critical to find out what you have and how audiences are reacting to it. You need to budget this process into your fundraising. It's about $20-$30k for a legit marketing agency to test the film in a major city. They will fill a multiplex to capacity for a primetime nightly screening with a curated audience that is likely the demographic for your film. This is 100% the playbook of Blumhouse, one of the most successful studios. They test everything and only go out theatrically with what scores the highest.

Do not try to do this on your own. You need a legit agency who can report to "distributors, sales agents" etc. for you that you have high test scores. Credibility is key here. Their involvement will help convince people you have a hit before you start shopping it around. You can't just assemble a room full of strangers and collect scores on your own and then expect a major distributor to take your accounting of the event seriously. They won't.

Nowadays, people care less about names when consuming content and more about just watching good content. Rather than breaking the cycle, which is impossible - why not embrace it. It may open doors for many who would never get looked at.

No big distribution companies care about your film.

Hollywood is all about who knows who.

The most promising avenue for No Name Film Guy could be to showcase your film in markets or big film festivals. These platforms provide exposure and attract industry professionals who could be potential distributors. This strategy can significantly increase your chances of getting noticed and securing a distribution deal.

Monkey Man, a big name, struggled to get distribution, so the producer approached Jordan Peele.

He got them into Universal for theatrical distribution around the Globe, and in return, he got 14% royalty and title credit as a producer without investing a penny.

You can follow in the same footsteps if your movies are too good.

Good luck.

Alan and Stephen,

Thank you for the feedback.

But i guess i should have "clarified" my post.

I am in the same dead-end chaos-loop scenario that 99% of all independent producers are in.

Basically....

No Star attached = No Funding or Distribution to MAKE the movie in the first place.

No Distribution=No Funding to PAY a star to get attached = NO funding to make the film in the first place.

Etc, etc.etc...

There are a BILLION great scripts out there.

But a killer script = toilet paper if you have ZERO connection or funding in the current model.

So my question is....

Are there ANY well funded independent studios that DARE make a medium budget (ie 2-4 million) feature with NO star attached IF the script/story is good enough.

And if so...

How do you get an introduction if they too have layers and layers of gatekeepers.

That is basically what i am asking.

(And probably what EVERY screen writer is asking here in one way or another)

Mark DePonte I understand your predicament. My thoughts, even if you had a 'name' you won't make your budget back, so there is no point in going down that path. The little guy cannot compete with studio level productions. Aim to make someone on a smaller, more attainable scale and don't worry about name talent. Films can be made for next to nothing today. Just got to get creative. Even self-financing micro-budget film vs asking people to fund a project when there is virtually no chance they'll make their money back is the way to go.

Scriptwriter is a bad word in Hollywood unless you know a director.

I have read many scripts for production companies and famous online script companies.

Many are rubbish, but few are good. However, the production company chose a scriptwriter known to them and lost a few million.

So, a marketing script is vital.

Debbie Elicksen $8.1B! WOW! YouTube is definitely a distribution option that advertisers, filmmakers, etc. should use. I watch a lot of videos on there. Short films, web-series, sports highlights, etc.

Yes, but I never show my face on it.

Not reporting quarterly numbers won't have an impact on anyone, anything except Netflix.

Thats interesting after so much fuss was being made last year to push streamers to be more transparent overall.

This is partly why the WGA strike was such a smoke and mirrors show. What difference does it make what you negotiate when the other party won't disclose what your script is worth to them? They have zero intention of paying out residuals. Cause writers would be able to figure out exactly how much the platform is earning with their I.P. and rather than risk that disclosure, platforms would rather pay the WGA fines as the "cost of doing business".

I used this company for my case studies in my Budget Challenge for studios to help them save close to $50 Billion USD.

If you would like to see the budget challenge, please communicate with RB and Support. (Filmmakers, Studio and Talent Challenges). On my Stage 32 Wall. One of the biggest examples are Content Write-Offs Tax Incentives. Can save you billions.

Those decisions are why he gets the pay rise.

He is not there to make movies. He is there to facilitate making money, which is done in the movie industry.

Craig D Griffiths is right, Pat Alexander. He's not there as a Creative Executive, he's there to run a corporation which means making money and keeping shareholders happy. By making decisions like axing Batgirl and Coyote vs. Acme to make more money back in the tax write-off, he upset fans and viewers, but likely made the company back more money than they would have in box-office numbers coming out of the strike when fewer people are spending money in theaters. I'm a HUGE Bat-Fam fan and was so excited for the Batgirl movie. But the reality is that he likely made the shareholders very happy with those decisions. Also, the streaming service flubs have been ridiculous, but it's a great example of what happens in the industry when someone new comes in and takes over a sandbox full of toys. HBOMax was already struggling and as the new person in charge, rebranding the service as Max was his way of trying to turn that around and make the service less focused on WB Content that he was acquiring. He wanted it seen as a space for his Discovery content that was merging in. It didn't work perfectly, but he's not the one who chose to name the streaming service HBOMax in the first place, which I always thought was a branding mistake from WB at the start. All of the streaming services are struggling currently and in some ways, Max is doing better than others.

Yeah, Craig D Griffiths, but he's making $49.7MM while a lot of the people who come up with the ideas for the movies and shows and make them are struggling. Ridiculous.

Couldn't agree with you more, Maurice Vaughan. It's ridiculous and gross. But it's also the sad reality of how larger studios operate. These are corporations first and creative entities second.

I think that the quality has dropped a bit and that's made it difficult to get excited about them, Debbie Elicksen. You know that I'm a pretty die-hard comic book geek and even I chose to skip seeing The Marvels in theaters. Instead, I waited to watch it on streaming. I enjoyed it quite a bit and found it pretty fun, but I'm glad I didn't rush out and spend the money to see it right away. I don't think they've run their course, but I think they need some new energy. If it's the same old tired format that anyone can predict, then it's going to feel stale at this point and disappointing to anyone who went out of their way to see it.

Jed Power “The screenplay is horrible…” Okay, Jed you got my attention. Please can you tell me why you think this? I thought considering the genre, it flew straight down the fairway of dystopic stories.

Hi Geoff, Besides being partisan, Dialogue, Characters, locations, etc. were unbelievable!

Jed Power oh, I saw the film with my son and we didn’t think any of those things.

Thats interesting that you felt that way, Jed Power. I haven't had a chance to see it yet but I've been hearing that they went out of their way to make the division within the nation so different from our current political landscape so that it wouldn't be seen as partisan. Such as having Texas and California united in the Civil War.

It's definitely confusing, Amanda Toney. Some streamers count it a view when you start the movie/show (even if you don't watch it), some streamers count it a view if you watch a certain amount of the movie/show, and I think I've heard some streamers count it a view if you watch the whole movie/show.

The article says, "Then there’s the biggest logical jump: Netflix assumes two people per screening. While multiple people watching the same Netflix account is common, solo watching is also incredibly popular, especially since content is viewable on personal devices." I didn't know the number of viewers was part of views.

Netflix... doesn't seem to know the truth of the adage "don't believe your own press" Especially when their numbers are private numbers and manipulated to push whoever they wish, even they have a hard time knowing what is really going on. One more reason they are risking default on several billions coming due in the next 2 years.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg I was talking to RB a while ago about Netflix’s debt situation and he said it wasn’t the case. I’m not sure who to believe!

Thanks for sharing, Pat Alexander. That shows that one production company, producer, etc. might say no, but another company or something else could say yes. Rejection doesn't mean we quit. It means we pivot. That can mean pitching other places, networking with new people, reworking a pitch, etc.

Pat Alexander Is there anything Jordan Peele can't do?