Distribution

You know, I’ll name a fairly obvious film that had very poor box-office results, but honestly, I really liked it: Equilibrium.

They even cancelled plans for a sequel because of the film’s poor box-office performance. And honestly, I would have made the sequel. I really enjoyed the film.

As for why a particular film doesn’t perform well at the box office, I think it’s impossible to determine one exact reason why it happened.

You know, it’s like paintings. Take Van Gogh’s paintings. Van Gogh lived in poverty for most of his life. And it’s not like you could say he was a bad painter. You can’t say he didn’t know how to paint. Today, his paintings are worth millions, but during his lifetime, they were worth almost nothing.

What was the reason? Nobody really knows. You can’t say that nobody knew he was painting. People knew.

So I think trying to understand exactly why a particular film fails at the box office is almost impossible. Cinema is art, and art is a risky thing. Something may connect with an audience, and something else may not.

Mine is THE FALL by Tarsem. One of the most visually stunning films I've ever seen, shot on real locations all over the world, and it barely got a release. My guess on what went wrong: no stars to sell it, a story that's hard to pitch in one line, and a trailer that can't capture what those images feel like on a big screen. Years later people keep discovering it, which says a lot about how strong images can outlive a weak release.

Diablo Cody's movie "Jennifer's Body" is the perfect example of marketing killing a movie. It is a Diablo Cody movie, so it is smart and funny...which is hard to do in a horror movie. A horror comedy with more feminist subtext than you can shake a stick at. And the cast? Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Chris Pratt has a small role.

And the studio marketed it as "Megan Fox is HOT!". That's it. The fact she turned in a great performance in a ... well it's darker than a dark comedy what with all the cannibalism and murders and such.. but it is still very funny in parts. They decided to pitch it to teenage males... who shouldn't have been able to get into the theater anyway given it's an R rated movie... and 51% of the people who did buy tickets were still women.

Two that come to mind for me are Thoroughbreds (2018) and A Most Violent Year (2014).

I loved Thoroughbreds. Cory Finley made something that was smart, stylish, darkly funny and genuinely unsettling, and Anya Taylor-Joy, Olivia Cooke and Anton Yelchin were all terrific. I always thought it deserved a much bigger audience. My guess is the biggest issue was positioning — it lives somewhere between a dark comedy, thriller, satire and coming-of-age movie, and that’s not an easy thing to sell in one clean campaign. It also came out before Anya and Olivia had the level of recognition they have now, so the cast couldn’t quite do the heavy lifting for the marketing yet.

A Most Violent Year is another one. J.C. Chandor had Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain giving great performances, and the movie was very well reviewed, but I think the title and campaign set up the wrong expectation. It sounds like you’re about to see a hard-edged gangster or crime thriller, when it’s actually a much quieter, more restrained movie about ambition, morality and compromise.

To me, both are examples of how a really good movie can get caught in that gap between what the film actually is and the easiest version of it to market. Sometimes the audience is there; they just weren’t given the clearest reason to show up.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was sooo good!

Richard Knight Please tell me more about Reveel and theindietube.

Hi Richard. Thanks for posting. What kind of reach do your channels have?

Best of luck at AFM, Valerio! A comedy feature is a smart slate to bring to the market. One small tip from the post side: buyers increasingly ask early what the finishing plan looks like (grade, HDR/SDR masters, DCP), so having that mapped in the budget can make the pre-sales conversation smoother. Hope you come back with great partners for Cantina Digitale.

Some notes from experience at AFM, so you can go in with the proper expectations.

1) Comedies don’t tend to sell well internationally, so buyers at AFM (who are looking to sell overseas) may be less interested.

2) It sounds like you haven’t made the movie yet. When I went to AFM, I was in a similar boat. many buyers I approached didn’t want to meet because they’re only interested in finished films.

These are not reasons not to go, just be aware of what you’re up against.

Hi Valerio, I’ll be at AFM as well, working primarily around international sales, acquisitions and licensing. Your comedy project sounds interesting. I’d be happy to hear more about it and what stage you’re currently at with financing and distribution. Perhaps we can connect in Century City during the market.

Update: since is so difficult to have a list of Producers and Sales Agent I just have record mine, if someone want to share with me, message me in private, thank you

Curious to hear more about your experiences at AFM Valerio! And thanks for the awesome tips and feedback, All!

...too bad none of the dealmakers has any money for advances, negative pickups or MGs...

The decision I wish people made earlier is not a distribution decision at all. It is deciding who the film is for, specifically enough that you could name where those people gather.

Almost everything you listed downstream gets easier once that has a real answer. Runtime, genre, festival strategy, which materials you cut and when. And the expensive version of this lesson is watching a finished film that is genuinely good go out to nobody in particular, because the honest answer to who is this for was always "people who like good films."

On the rest of your question, I would separate two things that often get merged. Thinking about distribution early is useful. Designing for a buyer early is usually not. Films built to match what a platform is currently acquiring tend to arrive eighteen months later into a market that has moved, and they are the hardest films to market because they were never pointed at anybody in particular.

Designing for an audience is different, and it holds up. If you know a real community exists around your subject or your genre, you can make decisions in development that make the film easier to reach them with, and you can start talking to those people while you are still shooting. By the time you get to a distribution conversation you are not asking someone to find you an audience. You are showing them one.

The single most expensive lesson I have watched repeatedly: waiting until picture lock to think about any of it. By then the only lever left is spend.

For me, before even the finalization of the script. Listening to script readers informs me of what kind of distribution the project warrants. Not everything has to have a theatrical release. Getting foreign distribution locked down very early goes a HUGE way in securing total domestic funding and can expedite a green light quickly. Aggregators are priceless for streaming platforms, even with just the proposal ready. Myself, a really do want to see in numbers what the market demand is ahead of time. That shapes everything I do afterward. I've had foreign completely fund a full-length feature in six weeks before even the principle photography, based on cast commitments, and I've gone the other route with the "labor of love" project that was completed in post-production but never secured distribution at all and was canned...ouch...

Lourdes, that “labor of love” example really hits. There is a huge difference between creating something you believe in and creating something that also has a clearly understood path to an audience and market.

I agree that distribution should be considered much earlier than many creators realize. What I find especially valuable in what you shared is using script readers and market demand to help determine what kind of distribution strategy a project actually warrants, rather than automatically assuming every film needs the same path.

The foreign financing example is fascinating too. Being able to demonstrate demand, attach the right cast, and establish international interest before principal photography can completely change the financing conversation.

I think that connects with Chase’s point as well. Identify the audience early, understand the market around them, but don't let the current buyer landscape dictate the creative identity of the project. The goal is to know who you're making it for and build a realistic bridge between the creative vision, financing, and eventual audience.

That balance is something I'm paying much closer attention to as I develop my own projects. Appreciate you sharing the hard-earned lesson. “Ouch” is definitely the right word for that second experience.

Coming from an extensive background directing hundreds of commercial ad films in India, I believe distribution strategy must be integrated right from post-production. On our upcoming feature 'DAAS (Part 1)' (graded on DaVinci Resolve Studio), aligning the technical workflow and marketing positioning early has been critical for targeting international acquisition and OTT buyers. Great insights shared here!

Thank you, Mohammed. That’s a valuable perspective, especially coming from someone with your experience directing commercial work at that scale.

I agree that distribution shouldn’t be an afterthought. The way a project is shaped in post-production can have a major impact on how it ultimately travels, especially when you’re thinking about international audiences and OTT buyers from the beginning.

I’d be interested to hear more about DAAS (Part 1) and how you approached the workflow and positioning for the international market. Always good to connect with people who are thinking beyond the screen and into the full life of a project.

This is such an important distinction. Distribution shouldn’t be treated as automatically superior to self-release—or vice versa. The real question is what the filmmaker already brings to the table and what the distributor is genuinely adding.

An identifiable audience, established partnerships, mailing lists, community access and subject-matter credibility are all assets, even though they rarely appear on a traditional film budget. At the same time, filmmakers can overestimate awareness and underestimate the cost and skill required to convert an interested community into paying viewers.

For me, the decision comes down to measuring the value of the distributor’s reach, relationships, execution and risk against the rights, term, fees and control being surrendered. If the distributor cannot clearly reach people the filmmaker cannot, the economics deserve serious scrutiny.

“What inventory do you already have?” is an excellent question—and one producers should probably be asking much earlier, during development and financing, rather than after the film is finished.

Sandra Isabel Correia Thanks, appreciate it. Distribution definitely makes more sense for this one.

Zoltan Zoltan Exactly. That’s the real calculation. If the distributor is bringing relationships, reach, execution, or leverage the filmmaker genuinely can’t replicate, the split can make sense. If not, it’s worth asking what you’re actually giving up in exchange.

Joel Ross 100% Audience access and audience conversion are two different things, and that gap is where a lot of filmmakers get surprised. Knowing who cares is a strong starting point, but getting those people to actually watch, buy, attend, or share takes its own strategy and execution. That’s also why I like asking the inventory question early, ideally before release is even on the horizon.

Great post! I’m Abel, a professional screenwriter and video distribution specialist. I help filmmakers and content creators with screenwriting, video uploading, and distribution support across platforms such as FilmHub, Vimeo, IMDb, Tubi, and more. Always open to connecting and collaborating on great projects!

That organic Letterboxd growth could also be useful beyond social media. Have you considered including the engagement data ratings, review growth, watchlists and likes in your distributor or platform outreach? It could serve as real audience validation rather than just promotional material.

As I indicated before, Zoltan, we’re already streaming, so not pursuing distributors.

Are you suggesting we should?

Mike Boas the useful thing about Letterboxd growth is that it is people choosing to log your film without being asked. That is rarer than it sounds and it is worth treating as a signal rather than as content to repost.

Two things I would do. First, the people writing those reviews are your most motivated audience and right now you have no way to reach them. Find one, put something behind it worth having, a behind the scenes piece, a note from the director, early access to whatever is next, and give them a reason to hand you an email address. Reviews are rented attention. A list is yours.

Second, watch where the growth is coming from. If a particular community or subgenre is driving it, that tells you who the next film should be pointed at, and it tells you which five people with audiences are worth sending a link to directly.

The Vimeo question is smaller than the list question. You can always add another window. You cannot go back and capture the people who already watched.

Thanks for your feedback!

“Find” a way to reach these fans… That’s a great idea, and also why I was posting here originally. Is there a best way to do that?

The only way I know is by sending individual DMs on Letterboxd, the brute force method. I would also want to do it slowly, in case the site sees it as spam behavior.

Mike Boas Do not DM them individually. You are right that it looks like spam, and it also puts you in the position of asking strangers for something before you have given them anything.

Better version: make something that only exists if they come to you. A short director's commentary track, a cut scene, a piece on how a specific sequence was made. Then say so once, in the places those people already are. Your own Letterboxd profile, the film's page, the socials where you are already posting the review screenshots. "If you reviewed this and want the commentary, here is where to get it." One line, no pitch.

That flips it. They opt in, you are not chasing anyone, and the people who take it are self-selecting as your most motivated audience. A hundred of those is worth more than a thousand followers.

If you want to reach specific reviewers directly, the ones worth the effort are the accounts with real followings, not everyone who logged it. That is maybe five or ten people, and for those a personal note is appropriate because it is actually personal.

Hi Karen Ross , the Winans example is the right one to look at because it tells you the answer. He is not in DVD distribution. He is selling to people who already came to him, and that changes every part of how you budget it.

On the practical side, the real decision is replication versus duplication. Replication is a pressed disc with a glass master, cheaper per unit but it needs volume, usually 500 or 1,000 minimum, and there is an upfront setup cost. Duplication is burned discs, no setup, higher per unit, and it lets you start with 100. If you do not already know your demand, duplication or print on demand keeps you from sitting on inventory, which is where most people lose money on this.

The costs that surprise people are not the discs. It is authoring the menus and chapters, encoding, packaging and artwork, and if you are selling internationally, shipping and customs. Any commentary, featurettes, or extras are their own cost and their own time, and that is usually the part that quietly kills the project.

On merch versus distribution, I would say it is neither. It is direct-to-audience revenue, and the distinction matters because it changes who you are selling to. Distribution finds you new people. Physical does not. It monetizes people who already care, at a much higher margin than any platform will ever give you.

Which is why the honest prerequisite is a list. If you have a few thousand people who want to hear from you, a limited run is a real revenue line. If you do not, you will have a garage full of Blu-rays. Winans built the audience first and the store second, and that order is not optional.

Physical media creates lasting collectibility and tangibility that digital streaming often misses. Even as we position our commercial feature 'DAAS (Part 1)' for OTT acquisitions, exploring boutique physical releases and collector's editions remains a very viable monetization layer for indie and foreign titles. Great discussion, Karen!

Abhijeet Aade Hi Abhijeet, I hope you are well.

Yes, owning the IP is one thing - and rendering it valueless is quite another!

Emil Soliman hello Emil, yes, long-term brand value has to be essential for the Streamers, but also the owners of any IP. Surely it must form part of any company’s strategy?

How are things with you? What are you working on at the moment?

Hi Geoff,

Absolutely. I agree that long-term brand value is becoming increasingly important, particularly for owners of strong IP. Theatrical exposure, audience awareness, streaming, and the long-term life of the property can all become part of the same strategy.

Things are moving forward with me. At the moment, I’m developing Beyond the Five Senses, a feature film based on real experiences from my life and my book Pharaoh in the Land of Cappuccino.

I’m currently working with a screenwriter on developing the screenplay, starting with the story map and timeline before moving into the full screenplay. I’ve also already had conversations with producers who have shown interest in the concept, but naturally they want to see a strong finished screenplay before moving further.

It’s an ambitious project, moving through Egypt, Italy, and Spain, with a substantial story and a number of events and locations. So right now my focus is making sure the screenplay is strong enough creatively and commercially to support that level of production.

I’m also developing several other books and film concepts, so there’s quite a lot happening at the moment.

I’d be interested to hear what you’re currently working on as well.

Best regards,

Emil

Geoff, I think that may be part of it too. The interesting shift for me is that theatrical no longer has to undermine the subscriber-first model. If the window is controlled carefully, Netflix can potentially gain box-office revenue, event status and publicity, then still bring the film to subscribers as a premium streaming title. It feels less like abandoning streaming-first thinking and more like widening the value of the same project.

Charmane Wedderburn yes, Charmane, we live in interesting and exciting times for multi-platform releasing.

Whether this will impact indie film is hard to tell, but doubtful. AMC itself calls it a “low-risk opportunity” - looking only for completed or fully financed films, no mention of advances, MGs, negative pickups. They are explicit they will not compete with the studios or their distribution partners... All of which in the ends means that there might be some space for new indies, but clean screens and block booking by the majors will still rule, and that they won't be paying more than other distributors...