>He detailed very specifically in that video what he's going to
>do for this film in particular, in terms of release plan and
>economics, and then he talked about taking similar paths with
>films in the future. It's connect-the-dots. If he had
>acknowledged that his films are a special breed because of his
>following and other films would require other methods of
>release, then that's one thing. But he didn't say that.
>


Similar paths? Connect-the-dots? C'mon. bs. You and I have no idea how he would release another film maker's movie. Similar paths is completely subjective. So what if he didn't specifically say that? He can't change any of what he might do based off what he did or didn't say in this one q&a?


>If every film of his has turned profit, why would he do this?
>The answer is because of advertising budgets, neither Cop Out
>nor Zack and Miri made their money back at the domestic box
>office. In fact, since Dogma, I think only Clerks 2 made its
>money back domestically. That's also been his only film since
>Dogma to receive roundly good reviews.



Zack and Miri total domestic gross: $31,457,946
Zack and Miri budget: $24 million

Cop Out total domestic gross: $44,875,481
Cop Out budget: $37 million

Taken from Box Office Mojo.


More assumptions made by you? I think so.



>I think this is more fueled by greed and a desire to stop
>being viewed as a failure at the box office for the majority
>of the decade. If he attaches his film to his speaking tour,
>but he calls the money the movie makes the "box office for Red
>State," then it could make money back and he sees every dime.
>Unfortunately, that's like Prince going double platinum in his
>first week with Musicology, when the reality was he simply
>attached the price of his CD to his live tour, which recently
>has done far better than his CD sales. It's a misleading
>number. Despite the fact that it's grossly misleading, it will
>allow Kevin Smith to rant and rave about how he was right and
>this system of indie promotion works, and he made money
>distributing his movie himself, when in fact he only did what
>he's been doing-- talking and getting his fans to pay to see
>him talk.
>
>But, that's my opinion.
>>Just be careful what you shoot down without hearing the
>case,
>>that's all.
>
>I heard the case. I watched his proposal in its entirety. I
>think it's an enormously flawed and misleading case, and even
>if it succeeds, its numbers in no way indicate that future
>indie flicks could do roadshow style independent
>distribution.



Dude, fair enough. However I already acknowledged that I have no issue with your opinion on the release of his own picture here. I take issue with you shooting down how he might distribute SOMEONE ELSE'S film without knowing anything about his model to do that. His own distribution plan for Red State doesn't have to reflect how future indie flicks could do roadshow style independent distribution. Cause' it might be different. What you're saying just strikes me as shooting down someone that is trying something new and potentially healthy. Why don't you just allow yourself to sit back and see what he does before making an opinion?