Popular Posts

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Filmmakers Are Finding a Tougher Market at Toronto Festival - NYTimes.com

Hi Gang, well here we are once again, with reports from the trenches in Toronto this time, telling us not only how tough it is getting films made but once made distributed . Is this news ? Not to indie film makers. who will keep making their films and trying to get them shown.Stubborn bunch aren't they?
Of course most will not give up their day jobs.

Filmmakers Are Finding a Tougher Market at Toronto Festival - NYTimes.com

Shared via AddThis

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Twitter Effect's Power Overstated when it Comes to Making and Breaking Movies

Dr. Medai say:

Hi folks so below we have numbers confirming what everyone knows. WOM sells movies, and now it sells everything else as well. The web is just another place to talk, Can you trash a good movie on Twitter, sure, but if its really a winner,the film will survive. This has always been true. BUT will the distributors and theater owners let a film find its audience, no longer than they have in the past, which is, for most films one long weekend, maybe two. ads for entertainement choices in all media is nothing new, What is new is how quickly people can ruin the reputation of a project or make it.
Dr Media says back in the old days when I did focus groups for films we worried about bad WOM from screenings, now the bad WOM is micro broadcast by hundreds.
Of course you can also get good buzz, but could that be the studio ghost twitters, naw they wouldn't do that .RIGHT!
I mean everyone tells the truth on line don't they?

Twitter Effect's Power Overstated when it Comes to Making and Breaking Moviies

Twitter Effect's Power Overstated when it Comes to Making and Breaking Movies

Written by Sarah Perez / August 28, 2009 7:49 AM


When summer movies like Sacha Baron Cohen's "Bruno" and "Funny People,"
the latest from comedic hit-maker Judd Apatow, tanked, for once people
weren't blaming the quality of the films themselves. They were blaming Twitter.
According to multiple reports, it was the early buzz on Twitter - much
of it negative - that caused these movies to crash and burn. Similarly,
when movies do well, as is the case now with the sci-fi thriller "District 9" and Brad Pitt's action-filled "Inglorious Basterds," credit is given
to the powerful "Twitter effect" and its ability to make or break a
movie. But is Twitter really having this big an impact on the movie

Twitter Effect in Action?

Recent news from crimson hexagon,
makers of an online conversation-monitoring platform called VoxTrot,
reveals that the word of mouth circulating on Twitter over the weekend
about "Inglorious Basterds" was largely positive. In fact, only 8% of
the 4500 sampled tweets had anything negative to say about the movie.
Not surprisingly, the movie ended up doing extremely well at the box
office, pulling in $37.6 million in the U.S., with an additional $27.1
million overseas, during its opening weekend.

But was Twitter really the impetus behind the movie's success?
According to Matt Atchity, editor in chief of News Corp.-owned review
site Rotten Tomatoes, the answer is "no." He thinks Twitter's influence is overhyped and overrated. In a recent Forbes interview, Atchity is quoted as saying:

"It's an interesting word of mouth, but I think only for a
certain part of the audience. For the younger, more connected audience
that may be true but for older audiences, I don't know...Do I think
Twitter is affecting my cousins in Kansas City and what they see? If
it's a big enough movie, they are going to see it."

Tweets Don't Equal Ticket Sales

He may have a point. Despite the reports and charts
attempting to prove the "Twitter Effect," what's being said on Twitter
may not have as big an impact on real-world actions as is being implied
by these numbers. For one thing, we know that the demographics on
Twitter aren't representative of the demographics of the movie-goers. (Teens don't tweet, remember?) Plus, correlating the volume of tweets about a movie, as research service Trendrr recently did,
only proves people are talking, not what they're saying nor whether
their anticipatory tweets will lead to actual ticket sales. Besides,
don't we all know by now that correlation is not the same as causation?

Online Buzz Doesn't Always Deliver

Finally, online chatter, even when positive, can't save a movie (or a TV show for that matter, as "Firefly" fans will be sure to remind you.) Case in point: 2006's "Snakes on a Plane."
In what was one of the first cases of crowdsourcing movie production to
fans, the filmmakers eventually reshot parts of the movie to meet fan
expectations. They added in more snakes, more gore, and more death
scenes, thus bumping the rating of the movie from PG-13 to R. And, of
course, they added in the now-famous line "I want these mother####ing snakes off the mother####ing plane!"

Based on the online chatter and excitement surrounding the film,
everyone was sure it would be a success. Interest in the film went
viral, with fan-made trailers and scripts, lit-up message boards, and
general frenzy. What happened at the box office? Did "Snakes" become a
smashing success? No, quite the opposite. The movie managed to rake in
only $15 million on its opening weekend and, in the end, grossed $34 million domestically - only $1 million more than the production budget alone. In other words, it bombed.

What this means for Twitter is that the online chatter taking place
on the popular microblogging site, while still an important vector for
studying sentiment, is not powerful enough on its own to truly impact
the overall success or failure of a movie. As of now, only the
movie-going audience can do that. And guess what? They're not all on Twitter... well, at least not yet.

Sites Specific: Can Streaming Save Indie Film? - Features - News - IFC.com

DR. Media says if this is the answer indie films will go away. Why? Because it costs money to make movies even not so good movies, even extremely low budget movies, even less than 50k movies, and you know why, because, surprise , surprise, writers, directors, actors, producers, camera people, etc., like to eat, and investors, like to make money, unless its a donation of course.I do NOT think Indies wil go away, because there are alwaystalented people with good ideas who are willingto take the risk to tell their story, just the means o distribution has changed and the economics is going thruogh a shift, like everything else, BUT the 24/7 media world needs talent and content, and not just any content, as the article states, content that finds an audience.
The thing not stated here is the how of finding that audience, or the audience finding you. The means of production asre cheaper, distribution via the net easier, getting found harder, thats the key.
This model says we will take the films you make and we will market them for you sort of and if you make any money we will collect it and you will get paid. This model does not say we will invest in your movie, we will help you get funded, we will create funding for you so you can pay your crew, distribute your movie, advertise, it, etc. This is the vanity publishing business, and there will always be people who want to make movies or be published and some may have a good idea, well executed, in a timely fashion which gets to Sundance and gets seen and bought and released, want to take a guess at how many films that is, less than 5%.
The rest, and there will be many, will get to go online and HOPE they get discovered. Ask yourself, are these deep pocketed companies going to pay for acquisitions? Will they be at Sundance bidding against the Weinsteins or Sony Classics. If not there will be a lot of projects they can snag, a good name.
Good luck Indie makers,  if you are going to rely on this,make sure you pay the rent.
Dr. Media

Sites Specific: Can Streaming Save Indie Film? - Features - News - IFC.com

Sites Specific: Can Streaming Save Indie Film?