No Distributor?
The film is available only from its website? Would the great Kevin Kangas like to explain how he pissed off Lionsgate?
shareThey did this for the first film, so why would it be different this time? And you don't appear to know but indie film makers make more from selling there own movie than they do from a distributor.
For those that don't know you can get the flick at
http://www.kangaskahnfilms.com/store/foc2-dvd.htm
Don't know for how long.
" And you don't appear to know but indie film makers make more from selling there own movie than they do from a distributor. "
- Right.....
I do know, and I know that statement is false. I also know that when stating in the possessive, it is spelled, "their".
Guess you busted me on the typo! Nice one.
And your rebuttal on the "that statement is false" is impeccable. Can't fight that, can I?
Perhaps you and your logic can answer this one then. Use a piece of paper and pencil if you have to.
A film maker sells his own dvd for $15. Total profit is about $13 per dvd.
A distributor sell that film makers dvd for $15. Total profit to film maker is like 50% of profits after expenses, or roughly $0. (if you don't think this is so then you know zilch about selling low budget films to distributors)
Which is more, $13 or $0? I'm stumped. Hit me with some more of your wonderful knowledge, Einstein.
(and I went back and read your old messages--have you really been posting on the message boards of a movie you hate for almost 3 years? You can't have a real job...)
"A film maker sells his own dvd for $15. Total profit is about $13 per dvd.
A distributor sell that film makers dvd for $15. Total profit to film maker is like 50% of profits after expenses, or roughly $0. (if you don't think this is so then you know zilch about selling low budget films to distributors)"
Yeah... let's put that in real world terms. A filmmaker sells his own dvd for $15. But no one, or at the most a small following, know about it. But let's be generous and say he sells 2,000 units. He then makes a whopping $30,000. Fantastic.
Now let's look at the reality of film distribution: marketing the film so people know to rent or buy the damn thing. For example, a bad horror film like "The Cavern". Made for $150,000. Grossed over 6 million. Why? Because the distributor put it in blockbuster one week before "The Descent" went to theaters. That's what distributors do. Is that filmmaker happy with his 2.5 million in profit? I don't know, but I'd bet on it.
But hey, selling the film by himself, Kangas only needs to sell 166,667 copies to hit 2.5 million. I'm sure that's possible...
(And yes, I have a real job. For some reason, pretentious directors just strike a nerve).
What you just spoke of isn't reality. The filmmakers may have made it for $150K--I don't know. But here's how the distribution worked:
The company gave the filmmakers an advance probably something around $30-50K plus a percentage of net profits. Those net profits have probably given the filmmakers an additional $20K tops. They will need to sell foreign and VOD to make up the difference in budget.
For you to think that the filmmakers make ANYTHING approaching millions just because of what the movie makes that is just ignorance of the distribution process. It's very common knowledge that profit percentages are eaten up by distributors expense reporting.
Therefore if you want to look at unit-wise, any filmmaker selling his/her film directly will be making far more profit, and THEN they also have the option of then selling to the distributor anyway for additional money.
I believe what Kevin has done is very smart--the whole sell-a-limited then sell to a distributor. It's a plan that other filmmakers have begun using(Ryan Nicholson did it for his new film Gutterballs). I heard about that film the same place I heard about Fear of Clowns--a podcast called Night of the Living Podcast.
They have an interview with Kevin and he does not come off as pretentious at all. Perhaps your experience with him is a one-off?
Do you even have experience in this field?
The filmmakers were two main people. They did get paid an advance. And no, the distributor was not able to write off 7.5 million as "expenses".
Maybe you should learn a little bit about the business before speaking up.
Yeesh. I give you a little common courtesy and you go ahead and hang yourself with it.
Do I have experience in this field? I'm the personal assistant to a well-known producer's rep in L.A. Know what I do all day? I handle contracts for films--I fax them, I email them, I pass them to and fro between the filmmakers and the lawyers.
We have placed films with Lionsgate, Anchor Bay, Sony and Warner Bros.
Do I have experience? Do I. Now let's hear your experience, big talker.
Your comments are particularly laughable--the distributor was not able to write off 7.5 million--yes, that would be ludicrous! Except it happens all the time. Perhaps you heard of the well-publicized flap regarding a little movie called "Forrest Gump"--it made $660 million at the time and the studios still claimed it hadn't made a profit.
But I guess a studio would have trouble hiding $7 million and no trouble hiding around $400 million. This is such a well-publicized thing that you're either a complete moron or you're being purposely obtuse. I now believe it's the former.
In my first response I threw out figures and facts, and you respond with ignorant ridicule.
I believe it's time YOU learned something about the business. If you would like I'll dig up some hard fact regarding the money this film earned(I can easily find its rental revenues since we receive Rentrak Home Video Essentials each week) but I'm sure your responses would have no room in them for facts.
Best go bury your head in the sand--it appears your have neither a career in film nor in debate.
You neglect to note that the studio for Forrest Gump was also writing off production costs. On an indie film, the studio can not deduct production. It also can not write off contracts with theatres when the film goes straight to video. Their deductions are limited to a deal with blockbuster, and advertising costs (such as posters, maybe a trailer (but no TV spots) and conventions like NATPE.
Yeah, a lot of room to write off 7 mil there.
If you know as much about film making as you do about distribution, then it's no wonder you're wasting your time posting on message boards rather than making films.
A studio can write off ANYTHING--not limited to storage of masters, phone/fax allocations, cost of making screeners/dubs, mail(of various things like screeners/dubs), etc. Those are recurring monthly bills also.
There are other bills even on an indy production--things like QC checks, and the cost to fix a master that doesn't pass the QC. Encoding in Dolby Digital. Creation of a glass master and the cost of authoring it. The cost of each package as well as the art and advertising costs.
Even if the movie grossed 7 million(which it did not), that would be a retail $7 million. The studio would have received maybe 3 million of that(should I tell you how retail works, or can you figure that one out for yourself?), and I can promise you that the filmmakers did not see even 10% of that.
Why should I go on? You have your own version of reality that is not compatible with the real one. Keep talking out of your ass without anything to back it up.
Do you know anything about the indy market? QC costs $400, Mastering, maybe a grand, or do it yourself, Glass master $750, Authoring is done half the time by the film-maker... and replication by the studio comes in at a whopping 39 cents per DVD. And encoding Dolby Digital....??? please, I can do that at home in an hour. Maybe you'd like to throw out more fancy terms to try and make yourself look smart.
Also, any contract, and I should know, as I have signed several, for distribution includes fair disclosure of maximum fees to be assessed annually against profit of the film. So unless you are busy drawing up contracts that aren't worth the paper I wipe my ass with, I refuse to believe you have anything to do with this business.
That's about what I would have thought you would say. A good bit of nonsense.
QC costs $400 for the test. Know how much it costs when you fail?(because you WILL fail)
Mastering costs a grand if you have your neighbor do it. The studios do not use their neighbors. "Authoring is done half the time by the film-maker"--this sums up everything you have said so far. A real studio will never let a film-maker author one of their dvds. AS IN NEVER.
The Cavern was released by Sony. Sony does not let film-makers author their dvds.
You can believe anything you want, because it's crystal clear from your posts that your knowledge is a very limited thing. I will bet real money that you never signed ANY distribution contract for a feature film with a legitimate company.
Such a contract might have a cap on expenses but it won't have any term of "fair disclosure of maximum fees to be assessed annually". The best you would hope for would be an "actual and verifiable" account of expenses with a cap.
I am done with you. I can see why no one else is bothering with you anymore. You talk out of your ass with no real facts to back anything up, and you continue to attack people anonymously on message boards. I believe you are the definition of troll, and you are now Ignored.
"QC costs $400 for the test. Know how much it costs when you fail?(because you WILL fail)"
--- Uh I have mastered three of my films myself, and never failed a QC. Maybe that's because I know what I am doing.
"Mastering costs a grand if you have your neighbor do it."
--- The post house I work with in Santa Monica would probably take offense to such a comment...
"Such a contract might have a cap on expenses but it won't have any term of "fair disclosure of maximum fees to be assessed annually". The best you would hope for would be an "actual and verifiable" account of expenses with a cap. "
--- Would you mind explaining how a cap is different from a disclosed maximum expenditure? They seem the same to me?