3 ms·

I don't agree with that. I mean, let's be practical here, movies are there to make money. If a movie has a budget of 25 k, you need ~50 k people willing to pay

by kfk 14y ago

I don't agree with that. I mean, let's be practical here, movies are there to make money. If a movie has a budget of 25 k, you need ~50 k people willing to pay 1 euro to watch it to make already a decent margin. Then, after a while, you sell downloads withouth DRM and you make another nice profit. Other than that, a studio should offer: actors easy to reach to (maybe on a wage?), shooting gear, special effects experts, etc. Lots of this things would lower the entry barriers for movies a LOT.

joeavella 14y ago
I agree, but I'm trying to do this more from an angle of a production company than a studio. This first movie is to get the ball rolling, use it as leverage to raise money for the next, stay lean to make a profit and the get bigger and better each time. If it would eventually lead to a 'studio' set up as opposed to a 'production company' great! But right now I'm focusing on making great movies.
marquis 14y ago
If you're talking about movies as an industry then that's different, but if you're talking about finding great work like Primer or Herzog's documentaries, throwing money at filmmakers isn't going to make great work and kickstarter-for-movies may just flood us with more mediocre product that doesn't follow through on the director/writer's promise. You can't make a movie with a community controlling the outcome: you need absolute creative control to make a good film. Shooting gear, special fx: these things are already so inexpensive compared to 10 years ago that having a nice HD camera and lenses and access to After Effects isn't stopping anyone. I've got friends making films after hours and on the weekends because they decided a long time ago it's what they wanted to do, and they'll keep doing it until they make that one beautiful, promising piece. You just can't kick-starter this: good work happens serependitiously, not because of a bigger budget.

by kfk 14y ago

joeavella 14y ago

I agree, but I'm trying to do this more from an angle of a production company than a studio. This first movie is to get the ball rolling, use it as leverage to raise money for the next, stay lean to make a profit and the get bigger and better each time. If it would eventually lead to a 'studio' set up as opposed to a 'production company' great! But right now I'm focusing on making great movies.

marquis 14y ago

If you're talking about movies as an industry then that's different, but if you're talking about finding great work like Primer or Herzog's documentaries, throwing money at filmmakers isn't going to make great work and kickstarter-for-movies may just flood us with more mediocre product that doesn't follow through on the director/writer's promise. You can't make a movie with a community controlling the outcome: you need absolute creative control to make a good film. Shooting gear, special fx: these things are already so inexpensive compared to 10 years ago that having a nice HD camera and lenses and access to After Effects isn't stopping anyone. I've got friends making films after hours and on the weekends because they decided a long time ago it's what they wanted to do, and they'll keep doing it until they make that one beautiful, promising piece. You just can't kick-starter this: good work happens serependitiously, not because of a bigger budget.