To restate — if we can’t find a way to make indie films legitimate investments, then we will all soon find that we’ll be unable to get them financed, no matter the cast or the director. Then everyone loses out. Unfortunately, so much of that is out of our control, even if exercising our learned lessons from the release of THE TEN, THE NINES, or most other Sundance films.

I’d be tempted to be more optimistic — to believe that this is just a low point in the cycle, or there was too much competition last year, or the economy is the problem. However, the experience you describe also is remarkably similar to what occurred with SCOTLAND, PA, a film I produced and which sold at Sundance in 2001.

Theatrical releases were not always a loss-leader. Then it became assumed it would be a break-even. Now, the loss from the theatrical release will never be able to be recouped by home video, and certainly not cable & TV sales.

The unfortunate result is that the model only seems to work with films produced at $500,000 or less, which tightly limits the kinds of films and the people that would make them.

Clearly, I have a lot to say on the matter yet no solutions.

Thanks for writing about THE NINES. I feel like I’m in a support group with you.

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.

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.

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!

This isn’t a place to review the movie.

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.