Hmm… what would a child psych, or Shakespeare, or Freud, make of this title?

Have you, as yet, not had the opportunity to ask RR to blow you, or, have you not yet admitted your openness to being blown by RR, or, have you not admitted your openness to being blown by your own future past-perfect imaginary self?

Just curious, John

(or, Marcy Forgey’s first cousin; the one who terrified her in childhood with my plastic, red, toothy, glow-in-the-dark, T-rex).

http://www.rlslog.net/piracy-isnt-that-bad-and-they-know-it/

Just because your film made enough money to make another film, doesn’t mean you have to. But better to chose not to, then be unable to because you can’t scrape together the budget. If all that matters is eye-balls, better to make handicam virals and load them onto YouTube. I stand by my definition of “success” ;-)

RE: Most Movies

It’s entirely inaccurate to say that “most movies aren’t self-distributed.” Most movies” aren’t distributed at all. “Most movies” play a handful of unknown festivals (if any) and disappear. “Most movies” that play at the “real” filmfests (Berlin, Cannes, Venice, Toronto, Sundance) aren’t distributed at all (self or otherwise.)

Are film festivals a viable way to promote a film? Sure. Are they the best? Maybe. Are they the only way? Absolutely not!

If you found the film a chore to watch and felt that it was one of those films that thinks it’s smarter than you, perhaps it’s just because you’re aren’t really bright enough to understand it. I do notice that this is a common complaint among those who I would not tend to think of as all that bright.

Besides, the fact that films that are terrible (Meet The Spartans, anyone) DO sometimes make so much money doesn’t exactly make your theory all that valid. You don’t have to have been around a long time to realize that sometimes, good films don’t make money. John’s question is, why? Of course it’s a lot more fun to act the moron and tell him it’s because his movie sucked.

While a sizable percentage of viewers and critics disagree, fine let’s say you’re right and The Nines sucks donkeyballs. That’s why I included 22 other Sundance classmates in my original example, all of which sold and all of which faced a meat-grinder when they hit theatrical. Watch all 22, and if you think they all suck, then this is probably not a meaningful discussion for you to be having.

@Bill Cunningham:

The majority of the movies I cited were not released by studios’ indie labels, and never got that small-wide release.

@Tony Comstock:

Just to point out that every filmmaker makes his or her last film. So basing a movie’s success on whether it allows a filmmaker to make another has a logical limit.

And most movies aren’t self-distributed, so I stand by my defense of festivals.

This whole “Indie film is dead” discussion that the blogosphere has been having is really a lot of hooey…

Indie film (whatever that truly means) has movedon. It is the “Studio Indie” business model that is taking its hits to the groin — and for the most part deservedly so.

Someone at the studio level convinced investors/ financiers that it was a good idea to mass release niche appeal films. Even as DVD was the primary revenue source for every movie in a studio’s release slate, they thought it was a good idea to put a “quirky indie darling” from a festival into 1000 theaters across the USA in order to make money. All they really did was increase the overhead for each film. “Quirky”

I ran into this several times even on my D2VD side of the business. Filmmakers wanted to “Give” us their film in order to get it into Blockbuster, not realizing that it costs money to release a movie even just on D2DVD. Based on projections there were some movies we would never see a penny on even if we had acquired it for free.

It seems insane to think that Studios convinced investors to do the same. Thankfully, today’s filmmakers have many tools at their disposal to directly connect with film fans outside of festivals (or in conjunction with), magazines and the like. You can even get free marketing information (just not from me).

What I’ve always found is that Festival buzz is good for the filmmakers, but really doesn’t add anything to the actual sales of the film. Producers would be better off concentrating on creating a sellable, accessible film.

What I’m saying is: At this point I can count the honest mentors I have in Hollywood on one hand. Every once in a while, someone who has already succeeded turns around does something that is truly cool. We can thank them and throw whatever power we have behind them… or we can make it so that every time they try and help someone, they get Picasso-f*ck-distorted and spend actual minutes on self defense. Either way, the argument that goes: “But other people do it!� died a long time ago… like, with apartheid. - So I’m not entirely sure that mimicking tabloid headlines qualifies as moral high ground.

It’s the same reason I shield my eyes when I walk past those massive news stands on Sunset. You’re totally aware of how far-from-context those headlines can be… and you know that if you look, they’ll be about your friends.

Call me a radical, but I think pretty much any guy should be able to answer questions like, “Hey, how’d that work out for ya?â€? without his f**king lawyer present. (Or in truer J.A. context — without HER lawyer present.) You dig?