Distribution

Renato Pires Thanks for sharing, Renato! Just sent a follow. Looking forward to connecting with fellow creatives and industry professionals.

Abhijeet Aade I sure hope so, that's the vision!

Michael Howard Really appreciate you sharing your vision here, Michael.

I honestly think a lot of independent filmmakers are still trying to understand what the future “middle ground” of distribution looks like, especially between completely open platforms and traditional gatekept systems. That’s why conversations like this matter.

What stands out to me is that you’re not only talking about distribution technology, but also about building trust, curation, and community around independent films. That combination could become incredibly valuable as audiences continue looking for more intentional viewing experiences instead of endless algorithm-driven scrolling.

And honestly, giving emerging filmmakers visibility while helping them understand audience-building and platform strategy may end up being just as important as the distribution itself. Looking forward to seeing how your vision continues evolving.

Michael Howard How do you typically think about monetization on the channel? Are you mostly subscription-based, ad-supported, or a mix, and how has that evolved since you launched? What kind of revenue share or payout structure do you offer filmmakers, and are there any minimum thresholds before they get paid? For most filmmakers, how and when they are paid (frequency, thresholds, revenue share, advances vs. pure revenue share, recoupment terms) can make a difference and determine who leans more toward the traditional distribution route

I offer the same transaction-video-on-demand (TVOD) monetization that Roku's platform has built in. It's tier-based, such as $0.99, $1.99, $3.99 per transaction and I split the revenue 50% with the filmmaker. I payout when Roku pays out which is monthly.

Michael Howard That's brutal!

Yes, of course - I just want to stick up for entertainment only creative projects as just as or more valuable than any other type.

Robert D. Carver and Darrell Pennington, I think both points can live together. For indie projects, the useful marketing question is whether the campaign gives the audience one clear behavior to repeat. If the project is pure entertainment, that behavior might be a laugh, a shareable bit, or a memorable image. If it carries deeper social stakes, the same rule still applies: the public-facing idea has to come organically from the story so distribution can see who will talk about it first.

Well put!

Ashley Renée Smith The most creative film or series marketing is often the kind that turns promotion into an eventlike lived experience because it gives audiences a reason to participate, not just observe. When a campaign feels interactive, surprising, or slightly hard to miss, it creates curiosity, sparks conversation, and makes the title feel like a cultural moment rather than another piece of content. That kind of marketing also works better because people are more likely to remember and share something they experienced or decoded themselves than something they simply saw in a trailer.

These are great examples of how to think outside the box. I missed the Smile videos but wow, now I want to see that movie! (so it worked)

One thing we noticed immediately at our premiere was that audiences stayed afterward talking to strangers instead of rushing out. That communal energy feels valuable in today’s theatrical landscape.

Perhaps at some point, this will allow more new writers some opportunities. A boy can dream....

Amanda Toney They may be reducing the financial risk of film production while reallocating more resources toward TV development. Even with lower film output, they still need a steady stream of content overall. This becomes even more important as media consolidation continues, with Paramount set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery pending regulatory approval

I’d also love to see theaters eventually lean into replica environments of the films they’re promoting. Experiencing the world of the movie before you even sit down would be incredible and would make the premium experience feel truly immersive.

Dwayne Williams 2 Well consider a $50 ticket per person plus the upcharged popcorn (so, ~$120 night out not considering dinner), to fight traffic, parking, sit in a movie theater that probably hasn't been cleaned properly with people who don't care if their noise bothers you, all to watch something that you will see within your already-paid subscription price or even free with ads on streaming in a month. The prices are reaching to live-performance costs, where there are real people on stage. The up-charged cinema as prestige experience experiment was attempted by several niche chains in the early 2000s, and failed.

So while I see the MPA studios and theater chains positioning to do this, I don't see it as working for anything but something like Dune, and then only for the superfans who want to be there opening night. So far as theaters in merchandising, or creating replica environments, they are essentially forbidden from either of those due to the very complex IP licensing issues. The only ones to do that are theme park places where Disney, for example, has a side store on the theater it owns. The one exception is themed cups and popcorn containers which are underwritten by the marketing budgets of the movies. It's good to remember this is a studio decision, not a theater decision. Theater owners aren't even in the film industry in my books. They are short term landlords and make their money renting space out in hourly blocks, or daily/weekly blocks if required by their clean screen or block-booking contract.

Geoff Hall I think that’s a very fair concern, Geoff. Sustaining audience urgency repeatedly is probably the biggest challenge with event-based digital premieres. If everything becomes an “event,” eventually nothing feels special anymore.

What makes the idea interesting to me isn’t replacing traditional viewing entirely, but possibly creating selective experiences where the timing itself adds emotional value similar to premieres, live screenings, season finales, festival debuts, or communal television moments people used to gather around.

I also think the sustainability may depend heavily on curation and filmmaker-audience connection. If the project itself already has anticipation, discussion, or niche community interest around it, the event structure might amplify engagement rather than artificially trying to manufacture it.

Ok, this is certainly news! Thanks Shadow Dragu-Mihai !

Surprised this has not been offered for "The Odyssey." Yet.

Muhammad Muhammad I honestly think there’s real potential in this direction, especially because a lot of the theatrical experience isn’t just about the screen itself it’s about anticipation, intentional viewing, and the feeling that something is happening now rather than existing endlessly in a content library.

What’s interesting about timed digital events is that they reintroduce urgency and shared attention without requiring physical theaters. That psychological difference matters more than people sometimes realize.

And for indie films especially, event-based releases could help create identity and conversation around projects that might otherwise disappear into algorithm-driven streaming catalogs after a few days.

I also think audience behavior changes when viewers know they’re participating in a limited experience rather than casually browsing. People become more present and invested.

Curious whether you noticed differences in engagement or discussion between viewers who joined live versus those who watched later on-demand, if you tested both models.

If you need a film to test this again I would love to assist! I have a film in post right now to be set to premiere in about a month and a half 2 months!

Abhijeet Aade Yeah, I’ve noticed something similar in the small test I ran.

The live viewers felt very different — more attention, more real-time reactions, and they actually stayed more engaged through the middle of the film. The people who came later treated it more like a normal video, like you said.

That difference is actually what made me keep exploring this idea more seriously, because it seems less about the tech and more about how attention is structured around the release.

Still early on my side, but that pattern has been consistent enough to make me want to test it properly with filmmakers instead of just theorizing.

River Evatt That would actually be perfect timing.

I’d be really interested in testing this with you.

What’s the film about (genre + rough runtime), and who’s the target audience? I’ve found those details really help shape how the premiere performs.

We can then map out a simple test premiere closer to your release window.

Muhammad Muhammad That’s honestly fascinating, because it suggests the “event psychology” may be just as important as the film itself in shaping audience behavior.

When people know something is happening live and collectively, they seem to approach it with a different mindset more intentional attention, less passive consumption, and more emotional participation. It almost recreates part of the social contract of cinema, even in a digital environment.

What’s especially interesting is your point about the middle of the film. That’s usually where attention drops hardest on streaming platforms, so if live structure is improving retention there, that could become extremely valuable for indie filmmakers trying to build audience connection rather than just chase clicks.

And honestly, I think you’re right that this may be more about behavioral design than technology itself. The industry has focused so much on unlimited access and convenience that it may have accidentally weakened anticipation and communal engagement along the way.

Definitely feels like an area worth exploring further, especially for independent films that benefit from conversation, urgency, and shared experience rather than algorithmic discovery alone.

Pat this is the part most writers will not see coming. Library verticalization turns finished work into raw material for an AI repackaging pipeline. Most older distribution deals do not contemplate algorithmic reshaping into short vertical cuts. The reuse rights language is set for broadcast and streaming. The pay structure was written for a use case that no longer exists. Are any of these RoseBerry deals retroactive on existing library content where the original creators have a vote?

Pat Alexander Exactly and I think that’s the part people often ignore when discussing AI in entertainment: audiences haven’t actually stopped responding to quality.

When something feels genuinely original, emotionally honest, or artistically ambitious, people still show up for it in massive numbers. We’ve seen that repeatedly. The issue is that originality takes risk, patience, taste, and real creative effort and those are much harder to scale than fast, algorithm-friendly content.

What worries me isn’t AI itself as a tool. It’s the possibility of industries becoming increasingly comfortable optimizing for speed, familiarity, and passive consumption instead of meaningful storytelling.

Because eventually you don’t just train algorithms you train audiences too.

And once everything becomes engineered around instant stimulation and lowest-effort engagement, it becomes harder for slower, stranger, more emotionally challenging work to survive in mainstream spaces.

But ironically, that may also make truly human storytelling even more valuable and noticeable when it appears.

Eric Charran that's EXACTLY the issue - most contracts have no stipulation for clipping/library verticalization. i mean 10 years ago, there was no risk of a single frame from a show becoming a meme. Now we see dozens every day. Is anyone compensated? Nope. It's just positive publicity/PR/marketing! Like everything else, we'll be 10 years behind the curve - and the curve is starting right now. Artists aren't protected. No one is protected. And when it's not in the contract, it's always open to interpretation by the law (aka a panel of judges who can be bought and sold). Creators have no say - unless they had smart lawyers who could see the future or at least plan for contingencies, at the time of contract signing. Not a great trend emerging tbh

Pat the part that scares me is the AI workflow does not just cut. It learns. A studio piping a library through this pipeline ends up with a model that understands those shows structurally. The output cuts are the visible thing. The underlying model is the invisible asset nobody named in the original deal. Writers can fight for a clipping clause in new contracts starting now. The retroactive piece is harder and it needs collective action not individual negotiation.

Pat Alexander I think that’s exactly the tension a lot of people are feeling right now.

Audiences haven’t stopped responding to great storytelling if anything, the success of films and shows that genuinely connect proves people are still hungry for work with vision, craft, and emotional depth. But creating something truly memorable takes time, risk, and patience, which is much harder than optimizing purely for speed and volume.

And honestly, I think people can sense the difference. Even when audiences can’t articulate it directly, there’s usually a feeling when something was made with genuine perspective versus assembled for efficiency.

What worries me most isn’t necessarily AI itself, but the possibility of industries lowering their creative standards because fast, disposable content becomes “good enough.” That’s where things become culturally flattening over time.

At the same time, I also think this could make distinctive human voices stand out even more strongly in the long run.

Congratulations, getting a green light in the room while the exec was still reading the pilot is the kind of moment most writers chase for years, and a 12-episode order is a real runway to build something memorable.

Thanks everyone for your wonderful comments!!!!

This is so amazing - my biggest congratulations, Cheryl!!

Hi Cheryl,

First of all — huge congratulations. Moments like this are incredibly special, especially because they often come after a long period of invisible work that nobody sees.

What really stood out to me in your story is how quickly the executive responded once he actually read the material. That says a lot. In today’s landscape, where attention spans are shrinking and executives are overloaded, the ability to create something immediately readable, producible, and tonally clear is a massive strength.

I also think short-form comedy is becoming more strategically valuable than many people realize. If the character voice is strong and the comedic engine is sustainable, short-form content can build audience loyalty very quickly while remaining production-efficient. That combination is extremely attractive right now.

Another smart thing here is that you already moved beyond “idea phase” into execution phase. A lot of creators stay trapped in endless development. You actually built momentum, presented material, and created a path to production. That’s where careers start shifting.

And honestly, the fact that the exec read the script during the meeting and immediately responded positively tells me the concept probably has clarity and confidence on the page. That’s harder to achieve than people think.

Wishing you a fantastic production journey with That Christie!

Really love seeing creators push projects from concept into reality.

Cheryl Chase That’s amazing huge congratulations!

Honestly, stories like this are really encouraging to hear, especially for emerging writers and creators trying to understand how projects actually move forward in today’s industry.

The fact that a simple pilot script and meeting turned into real support and production momentum says a lot about the value of putting your work out there.

Wishing you the best with That Christie! Hope the series has a fantastic journey, and definitely inspiring to hear platforms like Tongal are creating opportunities for creators.

Ashley Renée Smith That’s an interesting way of mitigating the risk of coming up against another blockbuster’s release with the use of presales.

The 'event' aspect definitely helps drive attendance. It does all make it even harder for smaller films to thrive and succeed on the big screen

Ashley Renée Smith I think you’re right, it’s less about theaters dying and more about audiences becoming selective. When a film feels like a true “event,” people still show up.

Dune: Part Three is a perfect example some stories are just meant for the big screen experience.

Personally, I’m really excited for both Dune: Part Three and The Odyssey those are definitely the kind of films I’d want to watch in theaters, not at home.

I love going to the theater and here in Brooklyn the movies always have people in the seats. I love it.

I absolutely think that audiences have become more selective, in large part due to the price of tickets and also the fact that often the marketing of movies is not reaching audiences as effectively as in the past. I find that the exceptions are the films that identify and engage directly with their core audience - through targeted social media, newsletters, etc. The days of just spending massively on trailers, billboards, and TV spots (and booking talent on talk shows) as a surefire route to success are over.