I was thinking about this earlier today, and one thing that's not clear to me -- when it's almost as easy as falling off a log to get media to people and there is so much technology to leverage,...
I was thinking about this earlier today, and one thing that's not clear to me -- when it's almost as easy as falling off a log to get media to people and there is so much technology to leverage, what keep creative people in the industry from just ... making movies on their own? It's not clear to me what key part (or parts) of the industry are controlled by the incumbents to keep this from happening.
Maybe this is what they are saying Netflix did, but I think they created a studio to support their streaming service as the big property holders started catching on / catching up with the streaming thing and pulling their licenses from Netflix's service. I'm talking about just ... making successful movies and marketing the straight to consumers.
Granted, I know nothing about how the industry works at all, but it seems like people are hungry for something that isn't another Spiderman reboot or cinematic universe. Maybe independent movies are this? Or are trying to be? If they are, what are the barriers to their larger success?
I mean, surely it's money, right? Even one man youtube shows cost a bunch of money for cameras, lights, microphone, editing hardware software, filming location, and time. Most people watch far...
I mean, surely it's money, right?
Even one man youtube shows cost a bunch of money for cameras, lights, microphone, editing hardware software, filming location, and time.
Most people watch far fewer small indie films compared to big box films: how people hear about it, and then how far does someone have to travel to see it, and how long it's shown at the theatre.....every aspect of this cost a ton of money.
Everything costs money to make, and then costs a ton of money to advertise and to be shown on a big screen.
If people put it online for free, how will it compete with established content and how will it make enough money for a second project to be made?
To compete with big pictures AND the near infinite quantity of things people can watch online is not trivial business at all. We all only have 24 hours, and most of the time we're not willing to try things completely brand new. Which means every one factor that differs from the norm is an extra hurdle for the film to clear before someone will give it a try.
It probably also has to do a lot with investment and risk. Because movies cost a lot to make and the risk of failure is high, you need to make multiple movies to spread the risk. The one movie...
It probably also has to do a lot with investment and risk. Because movies cost a lot to make and the risk of failure is high, you need to make multiple movies to spread the risk. The one movie that does succeed can then cover for the failures. You also need a lot of capital for the upfront investment.
Unlike some others here I don't think its production costs that keeps more independent movies from getting traction: I assume it is the distribution, at least in terms of the big screen. Sure,...
Unlike some others here I don't think its production costs that keeps more independent movies from getting traction: I assume it is the distribution, at least in terms of the big screen.
Sure, every production needs an upfront investment, but that does not even have to be in the millions. Writers are cheap (and getting cheaper as we speak unfortunatley...), actors are around aplenty (and will probably be looking for work soon...) and the tech has only gotten more affordable in recent years - not cheap yet, but no (indie) movie needs to be shot to Imax levels. The recent trend of big studios to cling to brand recognition when producing 400 Million Dollar movies is an abberation anyway and has mostly only given us reboots, sequels, and glorified ads.
My hunch is that it is difficult for non-major movies to get screen time in cinema chains because the big studios also increasingly own the big screens see here. Similar to what we have seen in the live-music world.
Distributing via the small screen has been championed by Netflix in the last years, but beyond that, I am not sure what the other platforms are (besides Disney+ etc.). Is there a "youtube for indie films"?
Yes there are numerous YouTube for small indie films. The fact that you and I can't name at least five is testament to the hurdles of distribution for small films. Take most film festival films:...
Yes there are numerous YouTube for small indie films. The fact that you and I can't name at least five is testament to the hurdles of distribution for small films. Take most film festival films: easily best movies are from those every year but they don't make a billion dollars combined.
It's all money: production, distribution, marketing
Yeah I agree with this one @first-must-burn. Money is a big factor just in terms of how big and ambitious your projects can be, but I think creative people will tackle whatever project at whatever...
Yeah I agree with this one @first-must-burn. Money is a big factor just in terms of how big and ambitious your projects can be, but I think creative people will tackle whatever project at whatever budget they can get, and we'll all norm our expectations for production values around it. The real challenge is distribution. Video hosting is expensive and if you're trying to do it online really your only option that can make any money for you is YouTube. But then you're just trading one corporate gatekeeper skimming off all your profits by squatting on a logistical bottleneck for another.
I was thinking about this earlier today, and one thing that's not clear to me -- when it's almost as easy as falling off a log to get media to people and there is so much technology to leverage, what keep creative people in the industry from just ... making movies on their own? It's not clear to me what key part (or parts) of the industry are controlled by the incumbents to keep this from happening.
Maybe this is what they are saying Netflix did, but I think they created a studio to support their streaming service as the big property holders started catching on / catching up with the streaming thing and pulling their licenses from Netflix's service. I'm talking about just ... making successful movies and marketing the straight to consumers.
Granted, I know nothing about how the industry works at all, but it seems like people are hungry for something that isn't another Spiderman reboot or cinematic universe. Maybe independent movies are this? Or are trying to be? If they are, what are the barriers to their larger success?
I mean, surely it's money, right?
Even one man youtube shows cost a bunch of money for cameras, lights, microphone, editing hardware software, filming location, and time.
Most people watch far fewer small indie films compared to big box films: how people hear about it, and then how far does someone have to travel to see it, and how long it's shown at the theatre.....every aspect of this cost a ton of money.
Everything costs money to make, and then costs a ton of money to advertise and to be shown on a big screen.
If people put it online for free, how will it compete with established content and how will it make enough money for a second project to be made?
To compete with big pictures AND the near infinite quantity of things people can watch online is not trivial business at all. We all only have 24 hours, and most of the time we're not willing to try things completely brand new. Which means every one factor that differs from the norm is an extra hurdle for the film to clear before someone will give it a try.
It probably also has to do a lot with investment and risk. Because movies cost a lot to make and the risk of failure is high, you need to make multiple movies to spread the risk. The one movie that does succeed can then cover for the failures. You also need a lot of capital for the upfront investment.
Unlike some others here I don't think its production costs that keeps more independent movies from getting traction: I assume it is the distribution, at least in terms of the big screen.
Sure, every production needs an upfront investment, but that does not even have to be in the millions. Writers are cheap (and getting cheaper as we speak unfortunatley...), actors are around aplenty (and will probably be looking for work soon...) and the tech has only gotten more affordable in recent years - not cheap yet, but no (indie) movie needs to be shot to Imax levels. The recent trend of big studios to cling to brand recognition when producing 400 Million Dollar movies is an abberation anyway and has mostly only given us reboots, sequels, and glorified ads.
My hunch is that it is difficult for non-major movies to get screen time in cinema chains because the big studios also increasingly own the big screens see here. Similar to what we have seen in the live-music world.
Distributing via the small screen has been championed by Netflix in the last years, but beyond that, I am not sure what the other platforms are (besides Disney+ etc.). Is there a "youtube for indie films"?
Yes there are numerous YouTube for small indie films. The fact that you and I can't name at least five is testament to the hurdles of distribution for small films. Take most film festival films: easily best movies are from those every year but they don't make a billion dollars combined.
It's all money: production, distribution, marketing
Yeah I agree with this one @first-must-burn. Money is a big factor just in terms of how big and ambitious your projects can be, but I think creative people will tackle whatever project at whatever budget they can get, and we'll all norm our expectations for production values around it. The real challenge is distribution. Video hosting is expensive and if you're trying to do it online really your only option that can make any money for you is YouTube. But then you're just trading one corporate gatekeeper skimming off all your profits by squatting on a logistical bottleneck for another.
It’s the same with car dealerships. Distribution is well entrenched politically, and doesn’t play fair.