Sundance, The Nines, and the death of independent film
A quote from Mark Gill in the LA Times last week would seem discouraging for independent filmmakers:
Of the 5,000 films submitted to Sundance each year — generally with budgets under $10 million — maybe 100 of them got a U.S. theatrical release three years ago. And it used to be that 20 of those would make money. Now maybe five do. That’s one-tenth of 1%. Put another way, if you decide to make a movie budgeted under $10 million on your own tomorrow, you have a 99.9% chance of failure.
There are lots of ways to criticize his logic. For starters, most Sundance movies are way under $10 million. Many are under a million. And he seems to omit a figure for how many indie films are getting a theatrical release now as opposed to three years ago.
We need to ask, “Failure for whom?” Even a movie that doesn’t earn its budget back will likely make money for its distributors, once you factor in video and TV sales. More crucially, a good indie film generates future work for its stars and filmmakers. So there’s a lot of success to be found in that 99.9% failure.
All that said, he’s kind of right.
I’ve held off writing a post-mortem on The Nines, but now that everything is said and done, I should probably say and do it. The short version is this: the movie turned out just the way I wanted. The release of the movie was deeply disappointing.
Here are the key lessons I learned from the release:
1. Sundance buzz is annoying and meaningless
The Nines premiered at Sundance in 2007. We were happy the film got in — we were by no means a lock, despite our cast, our credits, and my involvement with the Sundance screenwriters lab. We got a slot out of competition on a big screen on a good night. We got a sales agent. Things were looking good.
My first inkling that something was amiss was when our first choice of publicity teams watched the movie and passed on representing us. They didn’t love the movie. The publicity team we ultimately hired did love the movie, and worked their asses off for it. Yet that first “pass” should have clued us into the reality that the movie was polarizing, and that every subsequent step along the way would be determined by our champions and detractors.
We did Sundance the way you’re supposed to do Sundance, with all the press interviews and trudging up and down snowy streets. We kept running into the same movies doing the same song-and-dance, several of them represented by the team that first passed on us. It was all smiles, but every time I heard festival-goers discussing another movie, I got jealous — unless it was negative, in which case I got a little happier. That’s a natural instinct, I guess. Indiefreude.
Looking back through the coverage of the festival, The Nines was one of approximately 20 movies1 that got significant buzz — either spontaneous or self-generated — while up on the mountain. The others included:
- The Signal
- Chapter 27
- The Good Night
- Joshua
- Teeth
- The Ten
- Waitress
- Under the Same Moon (La Misma Luna)
- How She Move
- Son of Rambow
- Once
- Nanking
- The King of Kong
- Grace is Gone
- Dedication
- Clubland (aka Introducing the Dwights)
- My Kid Could Paint That
- King of California
- In the Shadow of the Moon
- Hounddog
All of these except Hounddog (the “Dakota Fanning Rape Movie”) sold, either while at Sundance or shortly thereafter.2 Let’s call these the Graduating Class of 2007.
I’d put The Nines in the middle of the buzz pack. It was hard to get a ticket, and they kept adding additional screenings. But after the debut, it was clear we weren’t going to be in a giant bidding situation. Other movies were selling quickly, and new titles kept debuting.
Eighteen months later, it’s fascinating to see how little the festival buzz mattered. Prices for these movies — a key component of buzz, as in, “Did you hear how much it sold for?” — were all over the board, from the low six-figures to $7 million for Son of Rambow.
But it made no difference. They all pretty much tanked.
Waitress sold quickly, was released quickly, and made the most by far at the box office ($19M).3 Second place was Under the Same Moon ($12.5M), followed by Once ($9M) and How She Move ($7M). Son of Rambow will likely end up in fifth. It’s currently in release, and made $8M overseas.
In terms of box office, none of these are hits in the way Little Miss Sunshine was. But you’d be happy being any of them, because beyond those five, the other movies on the list fell off a cliff. None of them made a million. In fact, most didn’t make it over $100,000. The Nines didn’t, despite opening well.
But at least we opened. At least we sold. For our year, 3,287 feature films were submitted to Sundance, of which 122 played. Roughly 20 played in theaters. 4
The other hundred films played other festivals, and ultimately hoped for a DVD deal. And maybe that’s not all bad. Because you know what?
2. Theatrical release is kinda bullshit.
Even while I was making The Nines, I knew that the vast majority of viewers would ultimately see it on the small screen. In that spirit, we worked to make the shiny disc version extra-rewarding, with commentaries and special features planned from day one.
But at the same time, we were anticipating theatrical. A lot of effort went in to making the 35mm prints — eight prints in all. We would have conference calls to discuss dates and markets and theaters, with special screenings for opening night and whatnot.
It was a fool’s errand.
It didn’t feel like it at the time, but the theatrical release was really a token, contractually-obligated gesture. We were getting our hand stamped before the DVD.
It was billed as a platform release, opening in just a few key markets before going wider. But from the distributor’s perspective, there was no reason to even consider expanding beyond New York, Los Angeles and Austin. Each new market meant more money they would have to spend on newspaper ads, and there was no incentive to do it. From a cost perspective, New York and Los Angeles gave enough national exposure to drive the DVD release, which was where they hoped to make their money.
The only problem was…
3. The DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously
Because of Ryan’s relative star power, we were able to generate a ton of national publicity. He went on TRL and Conan and every other New York outlet you can think of. But making a college student in Iowa aware of a movie that will never play Des Moines is useless. He’ll forget about it in a week.
So the smart thing would have been keeping our New York and Los Angeles dates but having the DVD come out immediately.5 I know that invokes the stigma of straight-to-DVD, but if it means that potential viewers nationwide can actually see the movie, hooray.
The shortening DVD windows are a legitimate concern for mainstream Hollywood movies, but for indies, I don’t think it’s even worth serious objection. Arthouse theaters’ biggest competition isn’t DVD, but TV in general. The people who used to keep them in business are staying home to watch HBO and Bravo.
If I had an arthouse theater, I’d swap out a different movie every week, on the assumption that you can skim off the enthusiastic filmgoers — bolstered by fimmaker Q&A’s — and move on to the next batch. And that’s exactly what they do. As a result, The Nines and most of the other movies our graduating class played at theaters I wouldn’t normally frequent, often for only a week.
Putting out the DVD right away wouldn’t have cannibalized theatrical. There was no meat on the bones anyway.
4. I should have paid a lot more attention to foreign
By focusing on the U.S. release, I largely ignored the international markets until the Venice Film Festival, where we played in Critics’ Week. The smarter plan would have been going to Sundance with the intention of going to Berlin right after, followed by Cannes, followed by every other meaningful festival which invited us. 6 Given family and work commitments, there was a natural limit to how much I could have done. But a real first-time filmmaker could easily spend a year traveling with his movie.
We ended up getting a theatrical release in the UK, along with a pretty solid DVD. But the rest of Europe — Germany and France in particular — was left hanging. Even a good sale in Australia hasn’t led to release yet. Which is ridiculous, because…
5. Without an alternative, everyone will just pirate it
IMDb searches for The Nines peaked at #11 on January 20th, 2008 — two weeks before the DVD was released. That’s because it finally got leaked on BitTorrent. Suddenly, that college student in Iowa and that programmer in Arles could finally see the movie.
Let’s try a thought experiment: what if The Nines had leaked shortly before the theatrical release, say, August 19th? At that point, we were number 836 on IMDb, and that was during a concerted publicity campaign which would ultimately get us as high as 47 on the chart.
Would the leak have helped us or hurt us?
Given we were only playing in two cities in the world, I can’t think it would have hurt us much. And if there had been a legal and easy way to let people watch the movie — say, through iTunes — I think we could have capitalized on the attention. The pirated version was going to be available on or before the release of the DVD regardless, so one might as well benefit from it as much as possible.
To my thinking, leaking a decent-quality, watermarked version7 would have greatly increased the awareness and discussion of the movie, which could have paid off if the DVD and/or iTunes version were available shortly thereafter.
Should anyone bother making an indie film?
I know that a lot of this article comes off as a downer. The odds of getting your scrappy indie in front of paying audiences are pretty low, and the odds of really making money at it are subterranean.
But I stand by my earlier observation that there’s a lot of success to be found in that high failure rate. The Nines didn’t make a big splash, but it has a fair number of super-fans, including some filmmakers and critics. It has led to new opportunities for me and its stars, and a solid credit for the folks who worked on it.
Financially, the movie is a wash. I’ve never publicly stated its budget, but it was low enough that no one got hurt. And from the distributors’ perspective, the upside of undermarketing is that there’s not so much to earn back. For all parties, you can calculate the “opportunity costs” many different ways. I certainly could have made a lot more in my day job writing movies for other people, but in the long run, The Nines was probably more rewarding.
My advice? You should make an indie film to make a film. Period. Artistic and commercial success don’t correlate well, and at the moment, only the former is remotely within your control.
If I had to do it all over again, I would have made the same movie but completely rethought how it went out into the world. I would have challenged a lot of the standard operating procedures, which seem to be part of an indie world that no longer exists. The Nines would have likely made just as little at the box office, but could have made a bigger impact on a bigger audience. Ultimately, I think that’s how you need to measure the success of an indie film’s release: how many people saw it.
- This list is reconstructed by memory and Googling. If I’ve omitted something that was there and buzz-generating, I’m happy to append it. ↩
- A few more sales came later, including cable premieres. I haven’t heard the ultimate fate of Hounddog. ↩
- Because we’re accustomed to looking at domestic box office, that’s what I’m showing. But keep in mind that international is a crucial component, as noted later. ↩
- The grand prize winners — Manda Bala and Padre Nuestro — both got released, but I didn’t know until I just checked. ↩
- Alternately, make it pay-per-view on cable and satellite, or downloadable on iTunes. ↩
- Altogether, The Nines got more than 100 festival invitations. ↩
- I’d have it read “lookforthenines.com” in the corner. ↩
79 Responses to “Sundance, The Nines, and the death of independent film”
Leave a Reply
RSS feed for comments on this article.
Get a Gravatar. They're free and work on lots of different sites.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Nice words, John. Your reasoning is sound and impeccably put. With this experience behind you, I am positive that your next directing effort will be far more successful under many aspects. I’d just like to say that maybe you are right about the covering at the Venice Film Festival, there were just about two screenings and too little buzz about the movie (I don’t know if you remember me by the way, I am the guy who asked you for a picture when you made your entrance at the critic week…thanks again!)and given the atmosphere, with just the right pubblicity you could have scored a little more fan base. We are hungry for good movies here! That said, I am still waiting for the dvd release here…
June 30th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I think you’re right. Post-iPod, I want my entertainment whenever, wherever and however I feel like. The distribution channels aren’t really there yet, but I should be able to rent/buy a movie on iTunes as soon as I hear about it, and the guys who made the movie should get a cut of whatever I pay.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
What a really, really excellent post. Sometimes I’m surprised by just how terrific and useful your blog is.
I had no idea that ONCE made so little money. A major downfall of living in Los Angeles and hanging out with movie people has to be that I often have a radically inaccurate view of the financial success of films.
PS: Many happy returns on your marriage!
June 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I’m one of The Nines’ uber-fans, I still talk it up to everyone. That being said, I had to wait until it came out on DVD to see it because it wasn’t showing anywhere near me. I always wonder how distributors know where to release a movie? How do they determine that there’s not a “hidden” demand for a movie somewhere caused by magazine articles, and TV buzz? With the advent of the digital projection theaters, will it make it “cheaper” to distribute a film to more locations?
June 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hounddog release info:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=42977
June 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Has The Nines given you any nibbles or traction as a director? I can totally get that this is not your goal or focus…
…but let’s do a thought experiment and pretend that during The Nines you absolute fell head-over-heels for directing.
Based on your post-Nines experience do you think that it could be leveraged into platforming a directing career for you? Could you use it to get a gig directing high-quality TV? Could you go up for a $20M thriller b/c of the Nines? etc, etc.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Having seen the film in its theatrical run and having liked it well enough, I must say that I’ve gained a new respect for you with this honest recapitulation. Usually, in semi-public print and live forums the temptation is to regale audiences with the expedient, mostly uplifting discourse that, save a few exceptions, I find pretty much a whitewash. I’ll go even further, I’ve suspected this blog of having a bit of that attitude. And yet, even if merely to keep one’s perceived cynicism honest, one must admit when someone is right on the money. So bravo for this post, then. And finally, you’ve got a lot to be proud of (you don’t need us to tell you that). You’ve pulled off a well-constructed, intelligent thriller with some superb, brave casting choices and, I think, if you keep at it, at safe budget levels, you’re on your way toward hyphen-dom. Only by measuring your debut against the notoriety and commercial success of Tim Burton’s fourth of fifth picture could you come out disappointed, which would be silly if you ask me, for many reasons, and yet this is a game others and ourselves often play. But pay no heed to that. The movie is a successful first building block, and more and greater things should come out of it, hopefully, for all involved. All the best.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Great, great post. In grad school, I was told to write two kinds of movies - one I could make myself and one I could sell. (It was taken for granted that both kinds could and should be movies you cared about.)
Following grad school, I spent a year an half kicking around LA trying to get somewhere. One of the more consistent pieces of advice I got mirrored the advice I got as a student: Make something for yourself because no-one else is going to do it for you. It was often - though not always - followed by the warning: But remember, there are too many movies right now.
To be sure the economics you present explain a lot. But the same economics make it possible for almost anyone to pick up a very good HD camera that gets a great film look to shoot their dream. And that means there’s opportunity that simply never existed before.
The distribution problems you describe also present their own opportunities. I mean, I’m considering creating a project that has a dedicated website and that is meant to be Internet only. It may be doomed to failure of all kinds, but it will still leave me with something to point to and for people to look at. Ultimately, more and more of that will happen until someone figures out the right formula.
Which makes me wonder: Is independent film really dead? Or is it about to get a lot more independent?
June 30th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I am always telling people about The Nines (& to go buy it immediately). So don’t worry about the state of Maine John, I got it covered. Also, if you can, do you know of a release date for Pass! Screenwriters on Surviving Hollywood Rejection? Thanks. I still can’t find all the bonus features on the DVD & I’m getting very indignant. Have a good day.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
John, do you think that the pass from the first publicity team and lesser interest from other parties had much to do with the ambiguous nature of the film? The fact that it doesn’t wrap everything up in a tight little bow like most Hollywood movies?
I ask this because…
a) I was actually a bit confused in watching the film; e.g., I wouldn’t have known part 3 was meant to be the TV pilot if I hadn’t listened to your commentary track. Now, me, I was fine with that, I like a challenging story, but buyers and reps, I can see them balking.
b) I’m going out with a supernatural thriller spec soon that creates a dense mythology and I’m not interested in making absolutely everything clear. I want to leave space for interpretations, theories and “geek talk” on the part of the Reader/Audience. But every friend who reads it tends to be lost in certain places, so I’m trying to balance just quite HOW CLEAR I make it.
Long-winded question on my part, but hopefully this spawns one of your thoughtful answers, thanks so much.
-Dan.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I’d love to be able to walk out of a theater and buy the DVD in the lobby. Why aren’t video stores connected with movie theaters?
June 30th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I must confess I watched the leaked version - as you said, here in Germany there is no other way to see this incredible gem of a movie. Would have loved to buy it, via iTunes or DVD or whatever.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:04 am
Excellent post, I — hey wait a minute! Saturday you got married and today you’re on the computer doing a long post-mortem on your movie’s release strategy? What kind of honeymoon is this?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:09 am
Great post! It was very interesting to hear your thoughts on the success of the movie.
I think one possible way to give your little indie film buzz is to screen it for bloggers, because if they like it, they’ll tell a lot of people.
I enjoyed The Nines, but all in all I was a bit disappointed at the end. I thought the cinematography and your directing was great, and Ryan was really good in it, but the story didn’t really work for me. A friend of mine feels the same way about the movie. It’s good, but could have been better.
So my question is - do you think the movie would have been better or appealed to a wider audience if you had written it for a studio with the same pressure and process that you go through on your day job?
July 1st, 2008 at 1:52 am
Well, it´s tough to bring atention to a film called The Nines when someone has already made The Ten.
A veeeery common problem for Icelandic first time directors that go on promoting their film for up to three years is alchoholism. Flying a film around festivals all over the world tends to keep you pretty much wasted the whole time. The biggest icelandic film director today, Baltasar Kormákur, is currently making his first Hollywood film. He doesn´t drink. Anymore.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:20 am
Yes, I downloaded it in bittorrent. No other way to see it in Spain. Still don’t know if it’s available here. I’d still like to get my hands on the DVD for all those extra features, ’cause I dont know if I “got” the picture right.
Regarding the Sundance buzz… I don’t know if you missed Timecrimes or it just didn’t do that great there. I know it won Fantantic Fest and it was released here this weekend and I absolutely loved it. But maybe it didn’t do that well in Sundance, I just don’t know. And according to this http://www.timecrimesmovie.com/ web, it’ll be released this Fall over there. I’d like to know what you think about it, I think you’d like it.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:40 am
“The DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously” Good point. We’re quickly coming up on this type of world. If you can get it on Comcast OnDemand and iTunes at the same time, then you’re golden.
Leaking a pirated version as it hits theaters is a good thought too.
“You should make an indie film to make a film.” Good to hear, since nobody is going to pay me to do it anyway. Takes some pressure off if you aren’t worrying about recouping costs.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:17 am
It’s interesting that Hounddog is opening the same day as DARK KNIGHT.
SInce I live in New York, and am a theatrical-movie-junkie (yes, I did see THE NINES at the Sunshine it’s opening weekend), I constantly forget that New York is the exception to the art-house release. Here there are several art-houses, and art films do hang around here a while, so there’s the illusion here of a strong theatrical art-film market. I have to remember that the rest of the country is not like this.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:22 am
“Would the leak have helped us or hurt us?”
That’s a very interesting topic. I believe piracy hurts the industry, but there are the rare exceptions where it can actually help. I believe one example is Elite Squad (Tropa de Elite), a Brazilian movie that went on to win the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival. It leaked months before its release. And it generate a buzz like no other Brazilian movie has generated before. I watched it on opening week and for the first time since de 80’s I saw a Brazilian movie pack a theater. Usually, few people go to the movies to see Brazilian films and, when they do (myself included here), it is only after lots of friends have stated that it was a good movie, and not just another waste of time and money. City Of God? Saw it months after its release. And I was not the only one. Now, was the leak intentional? Many people believe it was. If it was intentional, then it was a stroke of genius. If it wasn’t, then it surely helped make the movie a blockbuster (Brazilians standards, of course). As most (if not all) Brazilian movies are paid with Goverment money (in other words, tax money — yes, I paid to make the movie, and then I have to pay it later to watch it on the silver screen), it doesn’t have turn a profit, so the filmmakers actually had “little” to lose. Of course this is a particular scenario, but it shows that if you know how to play things, even a bad thing like piracy can work in your favor.
Sorry for the awful English.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:44 am
John,
I saw The Nines at the cinema in the UK (not London), and it hung around for a couple weeks here. If you had popped over with Ryan to do a couple of interviews it may have stayed longer.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:45 am
Writing from Germany, I must admit that I was somewhat disappointed that the movie didn’t get released here. The only DVD-version available is a very expensive UK-Import. I could get hold of the American release (although that wasn’t that easy) rather early and I really enjoyed the movie and I believe it would have done rather well on the German “arthouse theatre circle”, which is rather big: Even smaller towns and cities have at least one or two movie theatres that at least show “independent stuff” once or twice a week. For what it’s worth it got a handful of good reviews on the German Amazon-site.
But I hope that “The Nines” is not the last we saw from John August, the director? That would be a really sad.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:17 am
Thanks much for this overview, Mr. August…very honest, informative, and enlightening
July 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am
@Adrian
Digital projection does save money, but it’s really the costs of advertising and promotion that keep movies from opening in more markets.
@Sam Griffith
I’ll believe Houndog’s release when I see it. That article has it coming out in July, while the distributor’s website says both August and “soon.”
@Robotdg
I get offers to direct things, and it wouldn’t be that difficult to set up a comparatively expensive movie with me at the helm. In terms of TV, I was set to write/direct one of the Heroes:Origins episodes before the strike. If I were to write a pilot, I could direct it.
@Malachy
Yes, there’s a new class of super-indie that can exist with new distribution. But it’s so unlike the Sundance/Miramax model that it’s pretty unclear how it will work, for filmmakers and others.
@Dan-TWB
Yes, the lack of bow-tying was a factor in several passes. It’s not a huggable little indie.
@Todd Alcott
True confession: Sometimes these longer posts take a few days to write. I started this one as a single man.
@Andreas Climent
The Nines is so fundamentally not a studio movie that trying to apply those pressures and expectations would have only confused it further. I look at it this way: Most movies need to be palatable to most viewers, so you round off the sharp. An indie can be jagged and dangerous — and better for that.
@Darren
We did a lot of interviews with the British press, via phone. I agree that some in-person would have helped. At that point, though, Ryan and I were both working on new projects and couldn’t fly over.
@Couer42
I’ll be directing again, but there’s stuff I’m excited to be writing for other folks first.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am
John, I think you’ve mostly answered the biggest question here, which is — was THE NINES a movie for you or a movie for audiences? It sounds like it was a movie for you… in which case, as long as it didn’t lose a ton of money (which it sounds like it didn’t) and you had a good experience making it, why worry about how the release went?
The ability to make the movies you want to make, on your own terms, is a privilege not to be taken lightly. It doesn’t just take money; it takes creative clout, reputation, the whole nine (no pun intended). David Mamet’s movies never make much money, but year after year he puts great casts together and shoots whatever he wants, then goes back home and does uncredited rewrites to pay the bills. To me, that’s about as enviable a career as a person could hope to have in Hollywood. It’s a hell of a lot better than being someone like Steven Spielberg or James Cameron, and causing a seismic shift in the stock market every time you so much as fire up Final Draft. Or Richard Kelly, whose huge underground success went to his head so severely that he spent the next three years making a movie a lot of people consider unwatchable.
As far as I can predict, when you release your next movie, some people will be hugely excited, others will be cautiously optimistic, and many will never be aware it exists. Believe me, George Lucas would sacrifice important limbs to be in that position.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:39 am
Yeah, what Nick said. I totally understand the disappointment about the release/box office (I would feel the same if I were in your shoes), but now you are a director and here’s hoping that The Nines will open the door for you to make more movies and that the outcome on those projects will be all that you hope for.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
Hi John,
Thanks so much for the enlightening post, I am in the process of making my first feature, a small indie film called, Raspberry Magic. We’ve raised a portion of the budget and are slated to shoot this fall. These forecasts are totally bleak which worries me, but at the same time, as an artist, I agree, we have to keep making things, keep pushing forward to matter what the market forecasts are. My producer and I have been very intent on the fact that a theatrical release is more for PR, and DVD/foreign sales are where the bulk of the money is. We’ve structured our business plan as such, and are moving ahead in this fashion. Still doesn’t make the process easier, but we’re making a movie!
lp
July 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“Why aren’t video stores connected with movie theaters?”
With the same movies that are being screened? Because the belief is - why would a family of 4 pay $35 to see a movie in the theatre if they could just rent it for $3? In other words, if there is potential to make money in the theatre, a simultaneous release or one that’s too fast could cannibalize ticket sales.
In the case of a movie where theatrical dollars are expected to be minimal, a quick dvd release would make more sense.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Good timing with this excellent post, as I finally netflixed The Nines this past weekend. I enjoyed it. Some very inventive touches, and a good cast. I hope it will be a positive force for you when it all shakes out.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 am
John,
The type of film you made:
1: doesn’t fit easily marketable categories 2: is very much an indie film vision 3: is clever and fits with online interests and concepts 4: can leverage your tremendous online fan base
Of course it fits to reengineer the film distribution process to take advantage of the above (there’s plenty of us experimenting, not just at A Swarm of Angels). I’m surprised so many filmmakers are still trying to plough this broken route…
Did you consider any ARG, augmented reality, or transmedia storytelling events to galvanise and back up the release, or did you consider this would have been harder to achieve in view of having a fragmented release to territories etc?
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 am
We have a system especially designed for independent filmmakers / directors / producers who want to release their films on P2P while controlling how they are watched, and eventually being paid for each viewing, for instance using Paypal…
To understand how it works, just have a look on http://www.pumit.com
You can also test it on a documentary film released by the producer himself : http://clients.ubicmedia.com/KanariFilms/indexEN.html
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 am
I’d just finished reflecting on this and other stuff in response to the NYTimes coverage of Gill’s argument.
You make the excellent point that the people that make the movies gain a great deal besides money. If the dumb money really is filtering out of the business, the first implication may be that fewer indies get distribution and they’ll end up on shelves as projects that form the ongoing education of movie makers.
There does seem to have been a disconnect between investors, who put money in to get money out, and those who make movies every day, who put money in (or personal equity in sweat) to get out of it reputation, craft, chops, the next shot at work, and periodically top-of-the-heap success. That’s a very different dynamic, and decision-making in it looks to different goals.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 am
I would like to add that : The Nines has not been released in French theatres, and the DVD is not available at all. I would be happy to be able to by a DVD with French subtitles, not even to be able to watch it but also to pass it ti non English-speaking friends…
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:39 am
This is a great observation to make to your next distributor - to see if you can structure a more creative windowing strategy. Would be great if you could insert an ad-supported free web video window between the limited release and the home video sales, and also move up the cable window.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:25 am
Dear John:
As this is my first comment, allow me to say a) I truly thank you for your entertaining and resourceful blog, and b) Congratulations on your wedding!
I Netflixed “The Nines” last night, and really enjoyed. Solidly entertaining, creepy, with a great hook. Glad I finally caught up with it. And I appreciated the honest post, but I have to disagree with one assertion: I find it hard to say ‘Once’ “tanked”. The film was made for approximately $160,000, and has now made, ultimately, over 14 million dollars. And, of course, it famously won that surprise Oscar, and promoted The Swell Season as a result. If that’s a “tank”, I’ll take it.
Kind regards, and thank you, Wally
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Yes, Conan and TRL are fairly pointless unless there is an actual product available: theater tickets, DVD, digital download.
I am sure that you could have had thousands of sales during/after the tv appearances if someone said; “And its available on iTunes for $4.”
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
I, too, wanted to add:
a) Thanks for putting this together. It makes a lot of points that are well worth thinking about, for those of us who love these kinds of movies.
b) The Nines really is a fantastic movie - my wife and I watched it recently, and it’s probably the first time in months that we’ve both loved a movie and wanted to recommend it to other people.
c) I can’t think of a movie I’ve seen recently where I’ve so badly wanted to watch it again moments after first seeing it. And yet the movie plays fair, and everything really is there if you’re watching closely.
I guess I just wanted to say thank you - I know the release isn’t all you wanted, but the movie is excellent.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
John, I feel like you looked into my mind. I work at an art house theater as a projectionist/assistant manager that runs ona calender schedule of “New Movie Every Week.” I’m also in the process of writing and directing some independent stuff. You say “Each new market meant more money they would have to spend on newspaper ads.” I say newspaper ads are bullshit. Why aren’t the studios providing 30 second spots to the art house theaters of the world to advertise locally on television. Local Cable advertising is cheap! It’s the production of the ad that’s expensive for local business. Back in the day you’d get an ad for a movie with some dead air at the end for the local theater to voice over “Now playing at Merklemuffin Cinemas.” It’s the theater’s job as much as it is the studios job to help create awareness. Chain Theaters don’t need to do this because their product sells themselves. As I theater employee/hopefully Future Indy Filmmaker - I’d be selling everyone on downloading a high quality 30 second spot from the Internet, burning it to DVD - and handing it over to the Local Cable Company EVERY WEEK for what’s new at the theater.
But that’s just me.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Great post! I’ll share it with others if you don’t mind…
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Film festivals are to films what screenwriting competitions are to scripts. While it might be great to place well in either one, most know that if a film festival or screenwriting competition salivates over it then you’re pretty much guaranteed that the general public won’t give a shit. As your box office listings for those 20 movies shows. Little Miss Sunshine was a fluke and yet it’s held as some kind of “proof” that film festivals know what audiences like even when almost every film that gets raved about at them make almost enough money for a trip to Seven Eleven (what, you thought you’d make enough to go to Starbucks?). I often wonder why directors work their ass off and go into debt to get into Sundance or screenwriters throw all their money away on competitions when it’s pretty much like pissing in the wind.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Well, this is either really encouraging, or very distressing. I’ll let you know which when I know….
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hi John,
Your entire article is pretty much the reason why we have a business model.
We (Caachi - http://www.caachi.com) are an internet distributor of premium independent films. Though we’re only a year old, we’re selling films, and, importantly, marketing them on behalf of our filmmakers and distributors. We’re in the midst of reaching out to higher profile filmmakers and independent distributors and currently negotiating some licensing deals. If you’re interested in discussing ways to help you, feel free to contact us.
Best, Tom
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
the festival, theatrical then DVD model is dead, Dead, DEAD. The DVD is the first thing that should come out. Right now DVD is the only possible way for 99% of indies to capitalize on whatever attention will come from festival screenings, theatrical reviews, etc. If your DVD isn’t available on Amazon THE SAME DAY someone reads about how wonderful your film is, you can kiss that viewer, and her dollars goodbye.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 am
@Nick:
I didn’t make the movie “for me” in the sense that I didn’t care about the audience. But I went in knowing that the audience was going to be pretty specific. The mistake was thinking that the classic way of releasing independent movies would reach a significant portion of that audience. In its Long Tail way, I think the movie is starting to gather some of those viewers, which is some consolation.
@Matt:
We had a Second Life presence, along with interviews and a recreation of the main house. Honestly, it was more distraction than help. If we’d truly had simultaneous release, it might have been a factor.
@Pierre:
And frustratingly, we’ve had French subtitles since Cannes. The North American disc has them.
@Wally:
Keep in mind that the price tag for the movie doesn’t include the marketing, which for Once was substantial. The filmmakers didn’t see profits off of that box office.
@Tony:
I don’t disagree in principal, but remember that getting to DVD means already having a distributor, which is one of the main points of going to a festival. Under your model, a filmmaker would need to:
That’s a risky spot for a distributor, so it’s hard to extract a big price. But the trade-off may be worth it.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
Great post. Problem is, one’d probably need to make a film every two or three years to keep up with things.
In retrospect, don’t you think that the DVD cover could have been made a tad more exciting? Even if that meant lying a bit?
You wrote about the poster-art and if I remember correctly the marketing people were at a loss because the film isn’t in a clear cut genre. The DVD cover they came up with is very tasteful but I have a hard time coming up with some other adjective too. It’s not very suggestive.
So, I’ve often looked at the cover on your website and asked myself what I’d make of it if I saw it in the store, say (and didn’t know anything about the film). What kind of film is this and what is it about?
The green t-shirt and the overall colour scheme (dark green and mild grays) suggest to me some sort of institution with steel-clad walls. Like a military hospital or research centre. Possibly some kind of covert operation. The emphasis on numbers suggests math, puzzles, codes. Perhaps the guy is a code analyst who got incarcerated in this secret military hospital (military intelligence hospital?). For some reason it’s an all-male workplace, even the cleaners are male, so there are no opportunities for (male-female) romantic entanglements. There’s something fishy going on at this place because the guy looks worried and he’s clearly trying to puzzle something out.
All this is strangely at odds with the words: A metaphysical funhouse. Intoxicating FUN!
So my question is: If critics repeatedly came up with the word FUN why didn’t they come up with artwork that actually supports that? Is it because they did the poster first (pre-reviews) and felt the DVD cover had to match it, graphically and and in spirit?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
Distributor? Who needs a distributor? It’s a hell lot easier to make a profit on a $50K-$250K flick without one!
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
@John, as you already have French subtitles, Why not distribute it on Internet for French filmlovers ? Do you already have a distributor for France ?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 am
Hey John!
The Nines was in our Netflix cue and we watched it last night. Well done.
I did some analysis on your post over here:
http://kentnichols.com/2008/07/02/john-august-knows/
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
This is definately good reading for someone in the process of making his first feature (microfeature on film) and brings up ideas for how to progress through the next year. Thanks for your insight.
I remember seeing ads for The Nines and was saddened when it never arrived in the theatres here.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I’m sure many of you already saw this, but seems worthwhile to add to this thread
Sundance Winner Choose Self-Distribution http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2008/07/ballast_steadie.html
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I’ve mentioned this before, but I was interested in seeing “The Nines” until I saw the trailer and the poster.
My original impression: Post-modern mess-with-your-head comedy/drama about TV production with Hope Davis in it. Along the lines of “Adaptation”. Sounds good.
After seeing poster/trailer: Numerology thriller starring Ryan Reynolds. Looks very much like “The Number 23″.
And that was it. Yes, I read this blog and I knew it would probably be interesting, but if I’m going to go out to see a movie here in NYC, I have to convince my wife that she’d like it too, usually by showing her the trailer online. When I saw that trailer, I knew I’d never be able to convince her we should go.
I think Ryan Reynolds was a big liability. He’s associated with big dumb comedies in the public’s mind. I think you would have had to go out with a PR blitz along the lines of: “shocking change of direction reveals the hidden depths of Ryan Reynolds!” Sort of like they did with Adam Sandler in “Punch Drunk Love”.
In terms of the general problem, it seems to me like the solution is not same-day-DVDs, which I think would kill the theater business, but instantaneous full-quality digital distribution of all movies that aren’t on DVD yet. What if every projector in the country could download and play any movie in distribution instantly? Then those theaters in Des Moines could have one arthouse screen that played a different movie every night of the week. Which movies come back to play again is based on word of mouth. Zero print costs. Zero shipping costs. Stop advertising in print publications. Replace it with targeted internet advertising which costs 1/10 as much. Both “prints” and “advertising” costs are inflated by artificially-created scarcities that are ceasing to exist.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Sorry Matt, but your “what if” solution is no solution at all. If you want to wait around for the entire theatrical distribution chain to convert fine. Meanwhile I’ve got bills to pay and movies to sell. And right now the best way for an indie producer to do that is to sell on DVD, and you’ll sell a hell of a lot more DVDs if 1) The DVD is actually available when you’re getting press attention, which is cheaper and more effective than any advertising you can buy 2) You don’t cannibalize your DVD sales with a no pay festival run followed by a money-losing theatrical run.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Nice post.
Jaman (I work there) is an internet ‘movie channel for the world’ and we provide a world-class alternative to DVD, especially for overseas i.e non-US markets.
We typically license entire libraries e.g. Arts Allliance, First Look and Magnolia Pictures and whilst we don’t have The Nines yet, it would be in good company on Jaman.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Thanks for sharing this. I saw The Nines mentioned in the CS Weekly newsletter and knew it was the type of film I’d really like (CS also gave it a very high review)
I found it a very englightening spiritual film that was both funny and moving at times.
I watched it a second time with a friend, who I wasn’t sure if this would be his kind of movie. But he loves Ryan Reynolds (great choice for a lead). I have to admit, he confessed to me had he watched it alone he would probably have switched it off in the one moment they burst into song, but he was really glad we kept watching. As a writer though, I understood the relevance of that song to the movie’s theme.
I was surprised myself since I thought he’d only think it was an okay movie, but he LOVED IT! And I mean REALLY loved it
It’s a shame that it didn’t get the exposure/distribution it could have, but I’m really glad that it has led to other avenues for you. I hope to see more great films like this. Thanks
July 6th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Hi John — I am one of the deep downunder “left out of the rest of the world” Australians who watched The Nines without paying for it. I had seen a poster somewhere sometime (web or real life - no idea), watched the trailer online and was curious enough to consider seeing it. But then I didn’t see it in cinemas or advertised anywhere. Eventually it drifted to the back of my mind and it was only when I found this blog that I remembered it.
One day a friend came over with his portable hard-drive and it was loaded up with movies. The Nines was one of them. We transferred it to the PS3 and watched it.
Had it been available for rental ($2.95 new release) I would have rented it. Had I noticed it in the cinema I would have gone ($16 most nights, $10 Tuesday).
But I didn’t see it anywhere and got tired of waiting.
I didn’t pirate your film but I would have had my friend not already had it.
If there had been a $1.99 “official” torrent available I would have used it.
Down here in Australia we get screwed all the time with media. Delayed releases of movies and television, series abruptly being time-slot shifted or removed entirely, cool movies flickering by and vanishing — we want to see your work! We want to pay for it. But we often don’t have the opportunity to.
Simultaneous release of cinema, download and DVD is the only way to go for the future. My pirating friend has a large screen TV and hasn’t gone to the cinema since he got it! He just downloads (free) or rents ($2.95). There is no cannibalisation of ticket sales there. I already distinguish between cinema at $16, cinema at $10, rental at $2.95, download at zero or watch on TV for zero. If I deem a movie “wait for DVD” then I don’t go to the cinema just because I can’t stand the wait.
Anyways — sorry I pirated your movie. I would have paid had I had the opportunity. You want to put up a paypal donation link for pirates?
July 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Thank you for this great post. This was very helpful and a little of a wake-up call. After reading this and the recent keynote by Mark Gill at LA Film Fest, our expectations as indie filmmakers should be more grounded. The days of making an indie film and getting it to the theaters are over. Instead , we should focus on getting it seen by as many eyeballs as posible to get us to the next stage.
Thanks again. nl
July 7th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
How did Soderbergh’s BUBBLE do on DVD? (If I’m remembering right, it had a simultaneous DVD/theatrical release.)
July 7th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
i just want to say thank you for your candor and honest telling of your experience. My partner and I are making a documentary and are looking ahead (slightly) at the coming wave of promotion we will have to do to sell our indie labor of love. Your words are VERY encouraging while tempered w/ realistic expectations. Once again, thank you AND I’m putting the Nines at the top of my Netflix queue NOW.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Exactly. I used to be an indie film publicist. Used to tell my clients exactly what you are advocating. No one listened. I wish more filmmakers thought like you. And, I wish more filmmakers made films as good as yours. (I ultimately realized I didn’t love movies enough anymore and have only watched about 3 movies in the last 18 months.)
July 8th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Without a very limited release, a film like “The Nines” never had a chance. How can a movie make money if it’s only shown on two or more theaters ? It’s virtually impossible. The DVD market is the future and should not be seen as shameful. One example is “Lars and the Real Girl”: In theaters it failed to reach the 1 million spot but it made over 20 million dollars in DVD rentals.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:08 am
As one of your movie’s filmmaker fans, I completely agree with what I take to be your main point, that filmmakers and distributors should stop being so wary of day-and-date theatrical/DVD/pay-per-view releases. At the same time…as someone who saw “The Nines” in its bullshit theatrical run at the Nuart…the excitement of shared discovery was palpable, and I’d hate to give that up, either as an audience member or as a filmmaker. I’m holding out hope for a third way — limited initial theatrical release in a few major cities (providing national press relatively cheaply)…followed almost immediately by a pay-per-view/online rental release…leading (here’s the third part) to a wider theatrical rollout, a combination of regional art houses, calendar theatres, universities and festivals. I know this seems counterintuitive, but who says theatres and festivals have to go first? The argument’s always been that people won’t go out to experience something they can get at home. But, in a culture where it’s almost impossible for a small film to be noticed, isn’t it possible that a few thousand early fans can take the place of a media buy? Maybe the communal theatrical experience should become something a movie earns…an end, not the depressing means (to-the-DVD-dustbin) it is now. In any case, thanks for being so candid. And for making such a fascinating movie.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:13 am
I’ve seen the DVD of The Nines on the shelves of most of the DVD rental places I’ve been to in the Montreal (Quebec, Canada) area, often with multiples copies available. It was even available in video stores that don’t usually carry a lot of indie titles. Your distributor is doing a good job around here!
I did rent it and enjoyed it very much. Congrats and thanks for sharing your experience with us.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I’ve become slightly more cynical — I don’t think that the token theatrical release is even really about press or any chance of profit, it’s simply a way to pay filmmakers less money than straight to dvd releases. If each theatrical dumpjob costs 25k (and they cost less than that when done as badly as possible) but the same company gets the dvd for 100 to 200k less than the straight to dvd distribs, you can see where the real upside is, and how the opposite of motivated they are in the theatrical release. It’s a 150k worth of vanity, but frankly, it’s worth it. We are making movies after all.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
A great piece of August honesty.
If the studios were as straight with themselves in analyzing how things are working in the “indie” business, they would be mining the opportunity instead of running away from it as fast as they can.
Imagine where the record business might be if they had cut CD prices back to under $10 when it was economically feasible instead of trying to slip one by everyone, pretending that there was only one way to make the business work.
There is definitely a theatrical release program that can work better. But someone has to take the steps in that direction and filmmakers have to park the ego in order to let it happen. Unfortunately, Mark Cuban isn’t the hero so many hoped he would be. But with studio Dependents dying off, the void will eventually have to be filled. Failure creates opportunity.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Note from John: This comment originally came bearing the name of a film executive, and his email address — misspelled. Obviously, I suspected it was fake, and when I called the exec, he was confused and needlessly apologetic. There’s not really a system in place to deal with identity fraud on this blog (or most blogs). And I’m still debating whether to leave this comment up or delete it. It was obviously designed to stir up shit, but shit-stirring itself isn’t always bad. So for now, it’s here. But keep in mind that I think the writer had an axe to grind with the executive whose name he faked more than me.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe your movie wasn’t that good? Is that a possibility? That no one is interested in seeing the umpteenth Charlie Kaufman rip-off? That maybe you’re not that great of a writer or a director? That no one likes Ryan Reynolds? That people don’t want to pay 11 dollars for cheap meatphysical blather when there is undoubtedly something better to watch for free on Basic Cable? None of these occured to you. Of course they didn’t. Why would they? You’re John August! You wrote Go! Yay! Maybe what you should do is this: When you sit down at your computer to write, take a deep breath, and repeat this mantra: I will not write bullshit. I will not write bullshit. I will not write bullshit. You see, if you stop writing bullshit, you won’t have to worry about any of these things that have got you all perplexed and twisted sideways. Because you won’t care. It sounds to me like the real reason you’re mad is because no one wanted to validate your bullshit, and the fact that no one validated it has only highlighted that yes, indeed, it was bullshit all along. Sorry, John, but if you want the world to pat you on the back for writing and directing what amounts to nothing more than the most expensive Sci-Fi channel movie ever made, you’re in the wrong business, living in the wrong city.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
It’s a burdensome time to be a filmmaker, especially one just beginning his or her craft. For an independent filmmaker, the avenues to show new films are freshly paved, but nobody is brave enough to lead the way.
In the future, I hope, as soon as films are picked over by lawyers as to avoid potential lawsuits, films should all be instantly available and downloadable, for a price or not. This means the ability to copy films without DRM, DVD quality, and in multiple formats. Filmmakers ought to make as much as they assist in the advertising, be it word of mouth, web ads, or having critics write reviews. We will still have theatrical runs, but it may be more specialized and exclusive (as if that isn’t the case already).
I write all of this because I’m a filmmaker, unsure of what do with my project as soon as it’s done. Should I tour with it? Sell DVDs online? Find some website to host it? I really don’t know. This blog entry is a wake up call, especially where The Nines has a known cast and could’ve easily opened in either select or multiplex markets.
From one filmmaker to another, thanks for sharing your story with this film.
Best, ML
July 9th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
With the exception of Once and Waitress, there isn’t a film on that list that had a shot. People wonder all day long why these films fail. Seriously, take a look at the list again.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
What do you all think of the harsh economic situation that began in early 2006 as a possible influence for the declining interest for indie films? Does anyone have any data to indicate that the decline started earlier…say, 2001 or 2002? Furthermore, is it plausible that the bubble economy of the 1990’s may have spread an attitude of decadence, and allowed more of the middle class to find leisure with the indie film scene of that decade? Also, the videogame industry, though rising fast, had not yet surpassed the general film industry until about 1999, so perhaps the entertainment business focused more on the indie films with their attractive low budgets and popularity. I hope that the multiple distribution platforms, such as iTunes, HD-net, simultaneous DVD releases, etc, will help the indie film market.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
A few weeks ago I woke up and decided that I would just give my doc away. I’ll submit it to Sundance, Palm Springs, and SXSW first, why not. It can’t hurt. But ultimately I just want it to be seen. So I’ll break it up into 10 parts and post watermarked quicktime vids on my website and Youtube, and wherever else make sense.
Doesn’t do me or the main subject any good to have it sit, waiting to be picked up by somebody.
For reference it’s about a semi-retired trapeze artist/circus performer named Tony Steele and is called “Dreaming in Circus”.
Thanks John for the insight. And I’ve just put “The Nines” at the top of my Netflix queue.
D
July 11th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Dear John,
I’m a filmmaker too and thought the article was a good but somewhat morose read. You’ve had a film released in cinemas and been to Sundance. You’ve already achieved more than hundred thousands of other filmmaker dream to do. Of course times they are a-changing and there is a new recession coming on. But that never has and never will stop us from creating, doing what we love to do. Make films. By going so far with the Nines you’ve surely learnt many lessons you will bring with you in the future and for your next project.
So don’t let the nature of the beast let you down and never to stay true to your passion, your drive and your goals.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I have enjoyed your text, and don’t think it is really that much of a downer. It’s great to see you discussing the business from a differnto point of view, closer to mine, I am a film producer. I’m always surprised that so many people in the bussiness is unaware of it’s real nature. Film producing, as all the other cultural industries, is basically, an activity with little economic sense, and most certainly bound to failure. The odds are always strongly against any film, be it independent or mainstream. Acording to an old MPA study only one film out of each 20 released do cover its costs and provide a benefit to its producers. 5% of them. Maybe in a good year, they amount to 10 or 15%, it’s still an overwhelming failure rate. The odds are even worse on the book publishing or recording industry. Can you figure how many books or records are published each year and then how many do really sell and provide a profit to its maker? You yanks are fortunate enough to work in an inmense homogeneous market with 300 million potential viewers and to have large companies that act as a buffer for losses and can spread them over a number of years and compensate with income produced by other activities (theme parks, merchandising, etc.) or stemming from a large backlog of rights and films. I know that indie films are in a somewhat different league but they still benefit from such a market and from a cyclic interest from those large companies. It’s true it is a strange moment, nobody is sure about what to do, how the market will evolve or how much life has the whole moviegoing experience still left. Digital content is soming to theaters, DVDs will dissappear, Telcos will reign… or else. Who knows. I am writing you from Spain, you know, Europe, where the majors rule, and film exists only because our governments decided to support it. BO figures are shrinking, piracy is rampant, DVD sales down, costs always increasing, yet the majors are now entering again into local production in most major territories. Confusing. There is very successfull best seller writer, Alberto Vazquez Figueroa who is going against conventional wisdom, publishing his new book on his own, since he was unable to find an editor willing to go his way, and offering it gratis over the net, and at the same time in paperback and hard back in the same bookstores. And he is doing well. Not only that, he is offering most of his old novels for free over the net. This somehow echoes your remarks about piracy, dvd and theatrical simultaneous release. Yet, at the same time France is doing very well and it’s a tightly regulated market where exploitation windows are strictly regulated and enforced. And sales are strong. Confusing. I apologize for my limited English. In any case thanks for sharing your thoghts.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
john, you forgot to mention the main reason “the nines” tanked: it was a terrible film. the other movies you wrote were great, esp “go” was brilliant and “big fish” and a couple others were pretty good too, but “the nines” was just terrible…don’t even try to knock the amazing “once” which was made for a shoestring, literally for about 100k and made millions, that’s a success…”the nines” was just crap, reynolds is a terrible actor but very handsome, which was why he was “mr. morrisette” and dumped her, his acting is terrible, he needs to go back to the bad teen sex flicks like “waiting” and you need to go back to writing great scripts and stay away from the director’s chair, thank you
July 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
That’s the true Indie spirit - John - honest and gut wrenching because that is the only way an artist can move on by taking stock of what he has done. By the way - my film Sweet Amerika (it’s about a Sikh man [Sikhs are from India and they wear turbans like the Arabs]in New York who gets kidnapped by four Patriots following the 9/11 attacks in a case of mistaken identity) was one of those 3,287 films submitted in 2007 but was not one of the fortunate ones to get into the festival. I believe Sundance is not what it was used to be simply because there are too many films, not just the low, medium budget indies but even commercial pictures as many financing outfits have come into the production game. Perhaps Sundance has too much buzz for it’s own sake and not as much buzz that the filmmakers need to launch their films post-Sundance into the kind of successes the festival once hoped for. I live in Canada and I have only remotely heard of your film but I will definitely check it out. Even though my debut film didn’t make it into Sundance - I’m happy to report that Sweet Amerika is opening in 8 theatres in Canada on September 19. For me, an immigrant kid who grew up in Canada wanting desperately to be a filmmaker, this is as huge as being at Sundance was for you (minus the buzz) because ultimately films are made, regardless of how small or large a budget, to be consumed by all of us. But the problem is that there are a lot of barriers and success (whatever that is) depends largely on how you manuever through them. Looking forward to your future endeavors in cinema and in print!
July 15th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I’m way late to this party but wanted to say thank you for the great, candid post and point out one teeny, tiny thing: The King of Kong played at Slamdance, not Sundance. I know it was part of the Sundance buzz machine and without Sundance, there’d be no buzz at all. But I also know that while Slamdance programmed The King of Kong, Sundance programmed Ghosts in the Machine, a very slick documentary also about video games (and with many of the same characters!) with higher production value but less story.
In the end, King of Kong went on to gross about half a million. Who knows how much of that the filmmaker (and any investors) got to see but, as John pointed out, he gained a lot in filmmaking capital. He’s sold the narrative film rights of the story for a potential Hollywood remake, is in post on a big, Christmas comedy and is prepping another big film.
Yay for Sundance, Slamdance and the whole indie filmmaking machine (including John and The Nines). Let’s just hope we can get investors to keep funding little independent films so the good (but under $10m) projects still have a chance. And I can’t wait to see how more “new media distribution” changes the game for indies in the next ten years.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Steve,
This isn’t a place to review the movie.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:42 am
You are dead on with 4 and 5. I waited for the Australian distributor to do something, even on the back of all the stuff I was reading online, but in the end I just streamed it as I couldn’t wait forever. It would have dropped right off my rader had I waited much longer.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am
This post make me smile, it was not a traumatic experience, maybe because since a few months ago my mindset as a screenwriter / filmmaker has been changing , or migrating to a territory called Guerrilla Filmmaking.
Although I don’t consider Sundance at the catalyst of independent filmmaking, I do have to say that if you’re counting with theatrical release to make your money back as a producer of an indie film, you need an update. The latest trends demonstrate how majority of the profit of indie films come from everything but theatrical release (DVD, Internet, On Demand, Paid Subscriptions, Foreign Sales…), so yes, if you want a theatrical release and your budget was $ 1 million, you’re going to need to invest at least another million in publicity, maybe your investor cut you already a 30 % (for you) 70 % (for him) deal, so after you recoup the investment, if you do, and let’s say the film makes at the end $ 1 million in profits, after discounting distribution fees, exhibition fees, publicity, PR, legal, taxes… your investor is going to take $ 700 K and you will have $ 300 K, but hey! it’s not only you, you have 3 other producers the DP, the editor and 4 actors having some net profits points, remember? It was the only way to convince them to do the film for such a small payment, so at the end you end up with a 35 % wich is $ 105 K for a process that took a little over 3 years.
Now if you decide to gather 15 K from family and friends and make your creative, unique, edgy, visionary guerrilla film (yes it need to be all this, that’s the only requirement) think on Following, the first film of Christopher Nolan made with 7 K, you will have a chance to strike a DVD deal, maybe a Cable deal, if you decide to include your friend that is a well know model from Philippines, maybe you can have theatrical release in Philippines, your film can end up having a profit of $ 150 K, you want to share some love with your 4 actors and your 6 person crew ($ 20 K) and you want to return the money to your investors plus a 100 % profit to them ($ 15 + 15 K), you are going to end up with 100 K in your pocket, but you’re going to ask your investors help for your next film, you need just $ 7,500 this time, so since you made them win $ 15 K, they will give it to you, you will put $ 7,500, from your own money and you will start to shot your next film.
You finish your project in a year and a half with $ 92,500 in your pocket and financing for your next guerrilla film, while the traditional indie filmmaker took 3 years to make only $ 12,500 more than you and maybe now is that he will start to find the funding for his next film, Sweet!
Keep it up John!
July 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am
This was really interesting to read and thank you for posting it. I would consider myself one of what you mentioned to be the “uber-fans” and as others said, I promote to everyone I meet. Not to sound creepy at all, but I’ve watched the movie over and over again because I appreciate that it actually makes you think instead of offering a two-hour vacation from life.
For what it’s worth (which I assume to be very little as you don’t know me and beyond being a big fan, I mean nothing to you) the movie was a large success to me. It is definitely one of my favorite movies I have ever seen with solid acting, directing, and writing. I say good work and it’s a shame that it hasn’t reached more people.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The Nines was a nice film in that it did not make me want to quit watching after ten minutes. I believe you have achieved what you had set out to do, but as a viewer I would expect such a film to be more intense, like “The Fountain” maybe. Though I did not like “The Fountain”, I think you will agree with me when I say it managed to evoke very powerful emotions at times. Had The Nines managed that, I’m sure the audience would have loved it more. As it is, it looks like a sketch which does not inted to evoke very powerful emotions, which I believe, audiences hate. One feels a little -just a little- sorry for having spent 90 minutes for such a feeble story. I believe, Robert Rodriguez’s advice -Be Scary!- would have been useful.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Excellent post, John.
Very good of you to go to the trouble of getting the info out there. I too think it is worth making an indie movie if only as a calling card. ‘Son of Rambow’ the film you mentioned in the Sundance list. The director of that film was contacted by a New York company and he is now making a film for them.
I have found a company in NY who have been making low budget movies for a few years and have now landed a $100m studio pic. None of their low budget movies have set the world on fire but they have proved they can get the job done.
I think many new film makers do not understand that the main thing which occupies an equity investor’s brain is not how big the box office will be but will the film maker complete the film.