Distribution

Well, I see your point. However, we're not making burgers, we're making movies. If you want to sell burgers, you listen to how much salt the burger customer likes, and give them that, even if it's the most inedible food on the planet. Ask McDonalds. But the point to movies is NOT to make it plain and inoffensive. Seriously, studios need to just abandon reboots and rehashes of any kind, especially in the super hero and comic book arena. If they did something actually original within genre, they might find newer fans. But they won't, because corporate producers can always blame the fan base or the lagging market for a "proven" franchise and thus avoid association with failure. That's how corporate animals get promoted - not by being associated with success, but by avoiding association with failure. The same cover-your-ass instinct pushes a corporate producer to consult a fan base, as if fans have any opinion worth consulting. They don't, and I will say that categorically even though I am sure to annoy some people. Independent artists who have a solid voice in ANY media - music, painting, dance, and yes, film - don't consult their fans on their material. They are fans, not artists, and as fans they will buy your stuff, and those who don't like your stuff will be replaced by fans who do like your stuff when you do something different. You don't call them nazis or other names, but you certainly don't consult them.

It's like the saying goes we're in show business, not show show. Now, I'm not suggesting that fans dictate creative decisions if that's what you mean by "consult" but if you want to be successful you DON'T ignore them. Aristotle figured that out thousands of years ago. Step one is to create something for the audience that you feel you are a part of. That's how you craft something that is authentic and has appeal. The second is to understand what emotionally bonded your audience to what you created and work in service to that. That's what gives it continued value. I don't believe abandoning reboots or franchises is actually the point. Today's "blockbuster" producers and directors don't understand what made them successful in the first place so how can they be expected to build on that success? If they worked from whole cloth they'd get the same disastrous results.

the thing is how many of us are Zack Snyder? Maybe less than 5 Directors in America can do what Snyder does. HBO and Warner are partnering with Zack. They ain't bowing down to fans. This is Zack Snyder finishing a movie he didn't get a chance to do.

Thanks for the comment, Dan. True, none of us are Snyder but using him as a case study, there are some useful factors to consider. I think "bowing down to fans." is missing the intent. That suggests capitulating to unreasonable demands to an audience that isn't there. That's a subject I partially cover in my video but whole books could be written about. WB lost money on Justice League so no matter what their relationship with Snyder, no corporation is going to send good money after bad unless they know there's a built-in audience for it, ready to spend their cash to see it. The hashtag #releasethesnydercut is the result of years of vocal fans who endured being mocked and derided by pop-culture media, as they campaigned to see it. They even raised thousands of dollars for causes like suicide prevention while doing so. Now, what does that mean for independent content producers? It means that if you find your audience and they're passionate, they will have a deep respect for what you do as long as you remain true to the core values of what you create for them. As I said to Shadow in the above comments, this doesn't mean letting them dictate creative decisions but it does mean paying careful attention to how they respond to your actions. Read Aeristotal's The Poetics if you'd like to know the foundations for what I base my thesis on. Of course, you can try to be purely and artist in a vacuum and that's fine. If you're happy with what you create and feel fulfilled, then more power to you. However, if you intend to see a return and don't want the people who have invested time and/or money into getting that vision in front of an audience to feel cheated, then it is crucial to understand these lessons.

Christopher Cooksey Today's blockbuster directors and producers certainly DO understand what made them successful, that's why they are successful. I'm just going to say that. They are, however, in a much different level of industry than indie producers, with very different pressures and influences on their daily work as artists and business people. But I didn't say ignore fans, I said they are not worth consulting and I stand by that. Part of the question here is what you are defining as a "fan"? There is audience, and there are fans. Miles Davis is among many artists who despised "fans" and it took me some time to understand why. Fans are by definition not capable of artistic judgement. Fans will buy your stuff regardless of the content and they will acclaim it or criticize it regardless of how much money they put into it. Because that is what fans do. An "audience" is different and you have to understand the audience you are reaching for - demographics, psychographics - are you doing something intellectual or something that relies mostly on visuals, etc, and does the audience you are writing to actually spend their money on movies? That's very different than trying to fit a story or franchise into what you imagine are the opinions of fans. For instance, I win awards for comedy directing and I work with a writer who understands a particular comedy audience. We aim our content at the, but the general audience finds it funny as well. But in no universe would we consult them as to what is funny. Because by definition they don't know until they see it. They are fans and audience, not writers or directors. Likewise, I write, direct and produce unusual and sometimes diabolically difficult (for actors) dramatic material that is challenging for some audiences. I have a specific kind of audience in mind with each of those properties. But again in no universe would I invite their opinions. The consulting of fans on anything really is crazy. It is guaranteed to make it hard to produce something with artistic merit and with any originality. Making a personal statement is the role of the artist. That's their only obligation. The act of crafting a statement to reflect what an audience says it wants (which as I have implied, they don't know) might be a kind of art form in itself, in the sense of crafting propaganda or polemics, but it certainly isn't likely to create an artistic statement.

Great article: "Prepare for the Death and Rebirth of Hollywood" link: https://medium.com/swlh/prepare-for-the-death-rebirth-of-hollywood-f3853...

Yes, I did read that one and have contemplated doing a response video to it. Thanks.

"Hollywood" by which I mean mainstream studios, has been preparing to move into the fully digital realm for years. The Wuhan Virus event caught them unprepared though, and they are scrambling to adapt to where they were planning to be 3-5 years from now. It's a bump in the road for mainstream. It does, however, give a space in time for savvy new distribution platforms to stake out territory. But they cannot be the same model as what we have now. So I don't see the demise of Hollywood at all; just a serious moment when they scramble to pretend that "virtual theatrical" is anything other than far-too-expensive streaming, in a desperate hope that the public is willing to pay 20 and 30 dollars for a streaming experience. Which to some extent, they have been if you believe Hollywood's numbers (I don't). So far as budgets are concerned, mainstream is a corporate animal and addicted to big budgets. That's not going to change. It's reducing those budgets would kill mainstream, and they know it. I disagree with you though that independent filmmakers are "ahead of the curve." I really have to disagree on that. When I look at the 2-4 new "streaming" platforms popping up each week - I see only an attempt to emulate the large established platforms - which are part of the confluence of big budget production with internet economic models. If the people behind those platforms understood the industry, or were ahead of it, they would not be mindlessly emulating a model which economically they cannot do. Also, monitoring conversation among indie filmmakers reveals that most buy into the industry ideas without much analysis. Frankly, most embrace the Hollywood dream which still exists. That's inevitable, really, given that no one in mainstream OR indie film can afford to shatter that dream if we want to sell to the public. But it does illustrate a sharp difference between professional industry (at any level) and amateur industry. The former understand the dream and do not have their mindset dictated by it - in an always uncertain industry, they usually have a plan that makes sense; the latter seem all have the idea that of only they do a feature, they will be a successful producer/director/etc., and that is their goal. Oh well.

I still say Hollywood is done. Of course, there will still be companies producing content from the location of Hollywood, sure but they have lost the relevance to a global market and will now just have to be another player in a game where they were once king. True, many independent filmmakers are still trying to emulate the Hollywood way of doing things and a lot of new platforms will fail. That's just the nature of any competitive market but I'm seeing a lot of independent talent that has been creating content, on their own, for next to no money that crushes a lot of studio produced movies and television and the open-source communities are making it easier and less expensive all the time. Any artist with a decent computer could make a Star Wars type movie from their home by downloading Blender or Unreal Engine for free, along with a myriad of other supplementary plugins and programs. With a little talent and sweat equity, a stripped-down cast, and crew, and the ever-growing landscape of platforms, their chances of continuing to produce profitable content are pretty damn good. Stack that up across the globe and Hollywood becomes pretty redundant. Of course, there are issues that still need to be sorted out. If the tech monopolies keep reaping in as much power per day as they do, it will be a problem but then again, if they're not stopped then filmmaking will be the least of our worries.

When I saw this was happening, I rushed right over to Amazon to buy it & just watched it the other day. It was intriguing watching it through the lens of what's going on today..... some of it seemed absurd, but it's still a part of our country's history..... the good, the bad, the ugly & the absurd..... but gosh it's still a great cinematic production & story!

Becca Carroll Guido - they are still redistributing it, but I think moving forward, they won't have a version without adding context before the screening.

Our Distribution company (Destinations flag Ent) we focus on Black/African contents Distribution only Send me your film trailer & preview link through this email address : destinationsflag@yahoo.com And will get back to you.

Sobe Charles Umeh ondemand.global and Facet TV are looking for new and unusual content. send link to screener and press kit to acquisitions@ondemand.global

Hi Bruce, Let me know about your catalogue as we would like to license it for Indian sub continent and Middle East

Hello Bruce, I have a feature film which we just concluded post on and I'm currently looking for a distributor. Kindly inbox your email so I can send you the link to a private online screener. Thanks

Does Amazon run ads at all? I would expect you cannot do this. Amazon even vets your film content to ensure there is no "call to action" which could possibly take the viewer off their site. Even to the point of making you remove phone numbers of government services who address domestic violence, etc. They certainly are not going to let you decide what adverts to put on your content; They will decide that for you, if they do it at all. Remember, they are a private business and everything on their site(s) is designed to make them money, and not to let anyone else make more than they permit.

Hi Shadow, thank you for your response! I am a self-published author as well as a first-time feature filmmaker, and I run ads on Amazon to help drive readers to my books. It's through Amazon.Advertising.com . The ads aren't for third-party products - they feature my books; they show up on the pages of other books (over at the side, usually), with a tag underneath that says 'sponsored.' They work well and would be great for films, especially when trying to reach international audiences.

Susan Rodgers Thanks for that. I expect that they wouldn't let adverts go off an Amazon site. As far as advertising a film on Amazon itself, it seems it could be self-defeating unless the film was for VOD or DVD sale. Their per-stream payments are now less than 6 cents per hour, though their advertising rates are much higher. And in the film world, an indie is also competing with major studios whom Amazon is basically contractually required to promote over other content. Just a speculation, I obviously haven't looked at it in depth.

I met them at Cannes film festival and they seem legit! I liked them very much!