Printable View
I am of the opinion that it is almost pointless to get money from outside of the movie industry to make your movie because when your movie is done, your movie is in direct competition with the distribution company or studio's investment in their own product.
Even if a studio loved your independent movie, selecting your movie for distribution over their own movies may be bad business.
I'd love to hear counterpositions on this point.
Well I've spent quite a bit of time in Utah (my parents live there) and I've seen some interesting things. Utah is home to the mormons, and lately (for the past 2-3 years) there have been a number of independent "mormon" movies made, that have made good money. Recently some guy here got money to make a movie about the mormon bible (book of Mormon) and I think he got a 1.5 million budget? Well reviewers are saying the movie is **** and I certainly won't bother to watch it, except maybe for the laugh factor. But the point is the guy got $$$ to make his movie. That investment probably won't be paid back, but he got the money outside of hollywood as far as I know. Same with the other mormon movies, but they actually made the investment back and then some. So I think there is a chance for local independents. The mormon movies don't get much play outside of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and maybe Nevada, but they sure have an audience in Salt Lake City.
Utah is also home to the Sundance Film Festival, and I know several movies there have been picked up by studios over the years, though they were made with money outside the studio system.
I agree that the most logical way to raise money is to "localize" your story for the community you live in.
The Sundance example of studios buying independent films is also a good one, although usually there is at least one known actor in the film, even if it's a cameo.
clerks, pi, evil dead, blair witch project, swingers, in the company of men, american movie, el mariachi, roger & me...
just off the top of my head.
not a star there. not a dollar's worth of Hollywood money there when they were being made down in the trenches.
to quote the sage: "it works like this: get the money any ******* way you can. if you have any ******* talent and have done your ******* homework, you've got a ******* chance. all that matters is how good your ******* movie is."
what's with the ******* censorship on this ******* board?
Maybe you should learn a few more adjectives.
Sorry about the censorship, it's automatically done by the Hostboard software.
Those are good examples of films that were made and then sold. Would it be fair to say that one new film every year breaks through with "outside of Hollywood" money?
no doubt small odds for through the roof career explosion making hits
but many perfectly decent features go straight to video or at least make a positive impact on powerpeople at film festivals even without big distribution or even if they don't find intitial distribution
most people don't have a big enough view on things.
the hardest thing in the world to do is be a first time feature film director. nobody believes in you even with a good short backing you up.
it's ******* ******* hard.
but everybody believes in a second time feature director with a good if obscure feature behind them.
eg. Nolan. FOLLOWING before he did MOMENTO. Never heard of FOLLOWING until MOMENTO made it big. the Hollywood people who backed MOMENTO with him directing his own script had seen FOLLOWING and gave him a chance.
be a second time feature director
if you can get the ******* money and have any ******* talent and did your ******* homework create your first feature and the rest will come with time
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Isn't it amazing how readable the sentences are with the *** stuff ignored? [img]wink.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally posted by blue demon:
it's ******* ******* hard.
That made me laugh.