Comments on: Self-Distribution and Scoble

By: Tim Clague

Tim Clague — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:27:30 +0000

I think self-distribution is a viable way forward. All trailers on the Apple site look the same. They are equal. Its only posters and TV that you can’t afford. If you do a niche movie then its cheaper to market. Best example I can think of is a surf movie. You don’t even bother advertising in film mags – just go for surf mags.

So long as a film is low budget you can make it happen.

By: giagia

giagia — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:05:04 +0000

This is what I learned the other day from Andrew Macdonald, the producer of Sunshine… Last week, Andrew’s film The History Boys opened. The average cinema ticket price in the UK is £5. The cinema owners take about 75% of that. The rest goes to the distributor who takes a 15% cut, *then* takes the rest of the money until all of the marekting budget is paid off. When that’s been done, then Andrew gets some money.

Anyone in the UK will have seen posters for The History Boys all over the place… a lot has been spent on marketing…

Go see the film, so that Andrew gets a penny, at least…

Now, if Andrew were able to distribute his own film, he’d be getting the full 25% of the ticket price and paying for his *own* marketing out of that…

It’s a risky option because you need to market a film properly and to do that, you really do need money. Now Scene of a Sexual Nature is getting a lot of free marketing because everyone loves the ‘self-distribution’ story… But after this film it’s not really that big a story (David Lynch self-distributing *is* a story though)…

Also, they run the risk of being looked down upon as self-publish books are ‘Oh it mustn’t be good enough to get a distributor…’

By: Gugon

Gugon — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:59:25 +0000

That is interesting, because I just read that David Lynch is going to be self-distributing his new film Inland Empire. Is this becoming a new trend? (Then again, with the Lynch film, maybe no one wanted to touch it.)