Go back to previous topic
Forum namePass The Popcorn Archives
Topic subjectThat's not the relevant sticking point.
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=23&topic_id=94403&mesg_id=94552
94552, That's not the relevant sticking point.
Posted by Frank Longo, Tue Apr-19-11 05:56 PM
>>Furthermore, I reiterate again, unless Smith is going to
>tour
>>with every movie he produces, the system won't really pay
>off.
>>If he funds someone else's cheap film and roadshows it this
>>way, like he indicated at Cannes, I wonder if he'll tour
>with
>>it. And if he doesn't, when it fails, I wonder what his blog
>>will say.
>
>Just distributing completed films. And only taking it if the
>person can prove that it's been passed on by every studio.
>Said that at the last Q&A I attended earlier in the month.

The sticking point is unless he's there, people won't come.

>An whether they came for him or not, to me doesn't matter. I
>don't understand how that negates the release model at all.
>First of all, releasing under SModcatle Pictures or whatever
>it is will already put asses in seats whether he's there or
>not. It's sold DVDs, be it DRAWING FLIEW, A BETTER PLACE,
>VULGAR, etc. Just flying under that banner will bring heads
>out.

Vulgar LOST money. Made for an estimated 120k budget, brought in under 16k at the box office. Can't find numbers for the others at the box office, which tells me their releases were so limited that A Better Place almost certainly made under the 40k estimated budget.

(Note: I'm 99% certain the 120k estimate from IMDb for Vulgar is high, but between venue bookings and budget, it's still hard to imagine it was in anything but red before DVD sales.)

I'm aware that Smodcastle is big-- and I honestly really hope they give good movies a chance. But those movies WON'T sell out venues without Smith there in person. And he gave opportunities to little films by his friends and will continue to do so. But to claim it's a viable means of having an indie make money, especially to claim it's more viable than getting distributed by a studio... is lunacy. Which is what he claimed at Sundance.

On top of that, any film that a up and comer brings
>through that (in my eyes) wouldn't be coming with even close
>to that $5 milli budget on their picture. It's not really
>much different than Flixtour was in the late 90s. Low budget
>films making it's money back on the road. (for those who
>don't know about Flixtour:
>http://www.indiewire.com/article/flixtour_winds_down_after_wobbly_beginnings/)

>I just don't understand what's so polarizing about this, other
>than regular Smith hate. That's all I see.

It's not Smith hate-- roadshow distribution is just really difficult to get people excited about. Without some major critic or figure fighting for it as an advocate, or winning some major festival awards, it's impossible to crack 100k at the box office-- and most of the lowest budget films don't. Night Catches Us had major Ebert promotion and won tons of awards, and isn't sniffing 80k at the box office.

You just can't sell a movie well that way. You CERTAINLY won't even SNIFF a million without Kevin Smith on the road with you.

It's not hate-- it's just not a realistic way to distribute films, even really indie ones, and the bombastic way in which he rubbed it in people's faces at Sundance as if to say "This is the best way to do it!" was wildly shortsighted. It seems more like an ego boost for him, blaming the studios for the failures of his last few (not good) films.

I just wish he'd stop whining so much and playing the part of the put-upon guy. He's SO much funnier and more likable when he's being self-deprecating and totally ego-less. It's why his Evenings are funny, and why listening to him talk used to be so fun. And now... it's not as much.