Comments on: Technology Good News & Bad News for Indie Films

By: Jeff Steele

Jeff Steele — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:01:59 +0000

Traditionally yes. But spring and fall are becoming congested, as well.

By: Jeff Steele

Jeff Steele — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:59:31 +0000

The perk of having a blog is not having an editorial committee. The downside is, when I’m pressed for time, I need an editorial committee.

By: Nick Olivas

Nick Olivas — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:04:21 +0000

where is this post at? I did not find it? who wrote it?

By: Nick Olivas

Nick Olivas — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:22:32 +0000

dear Stan, take a look at the movie The beginners” it is an independent movie with a budget of 3.2 million, you know somebody must of bankrolled that movie. So the answer is no to the threshold being 10million. By the way if I was a investor I would be happier to invest 250,000 to a movie and watch it failed, then to invest in a 10 milllion dollar project and take a risk that it may not do well at the box office even though i will get paid first.

By: Nick Olivas

Nick Olivas — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:14:46 +0000

Furthermore the article was missing the point just because there are 3-d movies out there does not mean that their is no room for other movies that aren’t in 3-D . There still are comedies for example that people prefer to see in regular theater and not in 3-d or imax. Big studio movies like the hangover, Meet the Fockers, No strings attached, and love and other drugs.

As far as Independment movies in large chain theaters is concern. There still is times of the year where independent films make their moment, and those times are fall and spring. Cause statistics have shown more people go to the theater during summer and winter breaks therefore the comedies run during the summer and winter months, and the action movies run during the summer months leaving the fall and spring seasons available for independent movie screenings.

By: Nick Olivas

Nick Olivas — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:56:06 +0000

I believe Jeff you jump around too much from one topic to the other without first finishing your thought. By the way the Economist contradicts themselves.

For your example your first quote from the economist says “Right now the attention is on 3-D and IMAX, but is there still room at the multiplex for the personal storytelling and character-driven drama of indie film?”

Then the you quote another from the Economist saying “The second technology change the Economist cites could also be a boon to big and small films “the digitisation of cinema.” Digital projectors make it “easier for multiplex owners to shuffle films around screens to cope with surges in demand.”

I’m sorry but didn’t the economist was trying to convey earlier that there might not be enough room for indies cause of technology?

Here’s another quote from the economist”“Cinema-owners have long suspected that, by charging the same amount to see a $2m independent film and a $200m blockbuster, they were leaving money on the table. The response to 3-D films and IMAX proves that they were. Cinema is evolving from a commodity into a business that sells differentiated products at varied prices.”

Cinemas make money on the snacks not the film. Most of them get their movies from a distrubitor, they rent them for like a $1. I know this cause I had a friend recently work for AMC theaters in Los Angeles. Indpendent movie theaters may own a copy of the film and also take a big share in the profits, that you are correct on.

I think whoever wrote this article in the economist does not know what the hell their talking about. As far as your blog is concerned I encourage you to not jump around so much when discussing the many facets of the issue, your writing sounds like a second year college student, who does not know the rules of grammar.

By: Maureen

Maureen — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:54:35 +0000

Wow – Lots of good comments on Indie film.

By: BenL

BenL — Fri, 28 May 2010 17:55:06 +0000

Financial Times Article: Shrek 3D film fails to pull in the cash
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c86df2c-678a-11df-a932-00144feab49a.html

The market appears to be signaling price limits for 3D.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 21 May 2010 19:19:41 +0000

Maybe. It certainly could have been made for 12-8 million(though it has a fair amount of basketball stadium shots can be tricky to film with the extras). I am not going to argue that too much.

Still given a theaters cut I doubt it will be make back its money with a theatrical release.

And a larger point its the 40-10 million movies that i think are going to have problems going forward.

By: Cotty Chubb

Cotty Chubb — Fri, 21 May 2010 18:28:11 +0000

For what it’s worth, my fairly confident guess is the budget was between 40% and 60% of your estimate.