Netflix Meets Customers More Than Halfway

There's a new kid on the block.  He looks a lot like the other kids but this one's different.  He'll follow you around wherever you want, he'll tell you things the other kids won't, and most importantly, he'll pay attention to you.  He'll listen to what you want, thinks about it carefully, and finds the best ways to make sure you get it. This is what Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos made clear at this year's Television Critics Association (TCA).  Sarandos showed the industry that Netflix is now officially in the TV programming big leagues, rolling out its upcoming slate of shows that includes fresh ideas from Ricky Gervais and David Fincher as well as the much-hyped not-exactly-a-season-4-but-a-return-nonetheless of Arrested Development.  But the bigger message seemed to be that while Netflix's programming may be starting to look more and more like what bigger, more established networks have been producing, Netflix is different.  They're not beholden to advertisers, and they're not interested in publishing ratings for any reason.  How will we know if a Netflix show is a hit?  They answer is actually quite revolutionary-- they don't care if we do.  For them, it is all about creating value for the folks that are there.  Period.

Despite that Direct TV has been doing it for years, Netflix getting a lot of credit for bringing back a busted series. In this case they are bailing the Bluth gang out of forced retirement.  But the bigger PR story here seems to be the binge release strategy whereby all episodes of each season will be made available simultaneously.  What they will be no weekly episode reviews, no pushes to drive unified tune in, no twitter conversations syncing with each episode.  Instead, Netflix is anticipating a burst of attention, followed by a slow, steady cycle of recommendation and discovery that will make the only people that matter--their subscribers--happy for a long time to come... or until the license ends.

I hope it works. This new kid had a rough 2012 but he's still around and I like a lot of his ideas.  And I like how he treats me.

New Year's Resolutions & CRI Solutions

In the first week of the new year, most blogs and papers have published articles on new year's resolutions for the film industry and/or wrap-ups of last year's highlights and statistics. Some of The Wrap's resolutions are particularly relevant to the work that CRI fellows are doing now.

Some highlights and areas for consideration:

CHRIS MCGURK, CEO, Cinedigm: People have to re-screw their heads on about the way a film is released. It used to be that a movie had to be picked up by an independent distributor and get to 500 screens to be validated as a movie, but it takes $5 million to $10 million in marketing to do that, and it makes it difficult to get a return on your investment.

The way that a film can be released is an interesting consideration now from micro to ultratoobig budget projects. Ryan has designed his project to "address the lack of economic transparency in independent film with the ultimate goal of helping filmmakers better understand the options available to them when it comes to distributing their films." With a better understanding of the real costs involved in distribution, independent filmmakers will have a much easier time re-screwing their heads on in order to embrace changing release strategies.

FRANKLIN LEONARD, Founder, the Black List: I spend a lot of time thinking about data and how data can be used to improve the film business. One way that seems both obvious and interesting is making movies that already have an audience. Hollywood typically assumes that means, "Oh there’s a built-in audience for this board game." That’s wrong. It means determining ways to identify audiences for specific subjects or ideas via the internet, social media and surveys.

I agree with Leonard--the film industry has barely begun to collaborate with and learn from the tech world in order to harness data about what audiences want. Which is not to suggest that filmmakers should start making movies based on what audiences want. (That would be a cynical verging on gross thing to suggest.) Better tools to target individuals based on their interests and tastes mean better chances for filmmakers and grassroots distributers to build audiences around any film. I'm researching new digital platforms in this space, I'm trying to understand how to build community around film online and learn from that community, and I'm (hopefully) killing the word niche in the process.

GLEN BASNER, CEO, FilmNation: ...It’s much easier to have a hand in the creative process and in the development of a movie than when you're getting a big fee from the studios, making $20 million before you step on set. Don’t get me wrong, studios have a lot of strengths -- more advantages than disadvantages -- but they are not nimble. They can’t tailor each project to specific filmmakers. That has allowed smaller companies to enter the void and have a bigger impact than ever before.

Edward is aiming with his project to build "a new model of independent filmmaking focused on the production of feature films produced within the walls of the university system that will prove to make dollars and sense." Like Basner suggests, now is a perfect time for filmmakers working within a nimbler infrastructure than the studio system to "enter the void." And no one but no one is nimbler than a film student.

Full article here: http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-improve-hollywood-9-experts-weigh-future-film-70126?page=0,0

Crowd Sourced Cinema... how we got here

This week, WIRED posted an article about the emerging phenomenon of crowd-sourced cinema. This trend seems to have emerged as a result of a confluence of factors, including:

(1) The digitization of the modern movie theater.  As studios has pushed back on exhibitors to outfit their facilities with digital projection technology, the requirement to create a 35mm print to play in a big house has fallen by the wayside. Digital theaters can now screen everything from DCPs to Blu-Rays, brining the cost of creating a screenable "print" from thousands to hundreds of dollars.

(2) Low weekday attendance at movie theaters.   There's a reason that the industry reports weekend box office rather than weekly box office. People go to the movies on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, leaving an opportunity for alternative revenue sources during the quiet weeks at the art houses and multiplexes. A model where theaters can show a movie without shouldering the risk makes a lot of sense.

(3) DIY. With Kickstarter and IndieGoGo filmmakers are raising capital themselves. And with the decreasing cost and increasing access to equipment, filmmakers have the ability to make films with more autonomy and creative control. For the entrepreneurial filmmaker, digital distribution and on-demand screenings offers an extension of this approach, affording artists the opportunity to control the distribution process, determine price and access, directly monetize a fan base or all of the above (see: Louis CK).

(4) The niche-ification of the independent film business.  As studio films get bigger, small films seem to be getting smaller (Sundance, SXSW and Tribeca have recently launched sections explicitly for micro-budget filmmakers).  Just as the music industry has seemed to transition from churning out overnight successes that could speak to most of us, to an array of middle class theater-playing acts that speak to few of us, the film industry may be headed in a direction where filmmakers grow and nurture smaller, but loyal audiences. Bring on the sub-genres.

Whether on-demand screenings are a new and legitimate alternative to traditional theatrical release, a marketing tool to help raise awareness and allow filmmakers to directly access (and monetize) their fans, a revolutionary approach to repertory cinema, or something in between, it's a fascinating development and one we should all have our eyes on as it continues to find its footing.

Is Building for Theatrical The Future of Film?

In a recent editorial "Why It’s Better to Watch Movies in a Theater", Margaret Talbot of the Wall Street Journal makes a compelling case as to why now, more than ever, seeing a movie in theaters is sacred. She states that she looks forward to "the pleasure and relief of knowing that for two-and-a-half hours, I would be permitted the grace of concentration. I would not be answering e-mail, or the phone, or gazing guilty over at a basket of laundry in need of folding or dog hair in need of vacuuming..." Over the past several years, the industry has invested heavily in the theatrical experience--with exhibitors outfitting screens for 3D and 4K display and studios making bigger, splashier tentpole fare custom built for the big screen. And yet movie going continues to decline. 2012 numbers are not yet in but 2011 saw attendance hit a 16 year low.

Anecdotally, few of the people I talk to disagree with Talbot's point of view--that movies are better experienced on the big screen. There are plenty of theories as to why people are less compelled than ever to visit the theater... that ticket prices are out of control... that Hollywood is making bad movies... that television is better.

The good news is that people are still watching movies, lots of movies and in more ways than ever (see: VOD, EST and streaming and ad-supported VOD). But in this brave new world of digital viewing, does it still make sense for Hollywood to build movies for the format where less and less people ultimately experience them? As long as ancillary revenues are based on box office, this is unlikely to change. But for independent fare--which is struggling to compete for exhibition real estate--this could be a growing opportunity.  Something to keep an eye on...

The Hollywood/Silicon Valley Divide

Hollywood and Silicon Valley have a complicated relationship.  They are at once co-dependent and at odds.  As the music and publishing industries have shown, nothing has the potential to disrupt a media industry's business model like technology.  And yet, technology time and time again has created the distribution, storytelling tools and revenue streams that have allowed something as old fashioned as "the movie" to survive for nearly a hundred years. Today, as Hollywood continues to feel its way into the strange, uncertain future, they are finding that their own content is being distributed and monetized--with mixed results--by large, cash-flush technology companies (see: Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Netflix).   But their content is also being competed with-- by the very same companies they now need in the face of declining home video revenues and unprecedented competition for audience attention.  Instead of paying the enormous license fees that Hollywood is demanding for its movies and television, these technology companies have realized it takes little more than cash and talent to create their own.  And thus the technology companies of the last decade will become entertainment companies of the next.

Much has written about how TV has replaced the motion picture with regards to cultural relevance -- (sure, Argo is good but we all know if you're not watching Homeland, you're not in the conversation) but what is a TV show? As Netflix resurrects busted TV series' and Amazon is making network-developed-but-not-greenlit shows, the line between digital and TV is officially blurred.  Sure, Hollywood's top creative talent remains at the helm but who has the leverage?

Amidst these changes, the often ignored little brother of the content ecosystem continues to be short form digital content.  Though nearly any hot YouTuber has an agent, Hollywood on the whole looks down on the DIY production values and lack of curation in online video.  On the other hand, Funny or Die, College Humor and MyDamnChannel have built advertiser-friendly and loyal audiences (not to mention proving themselves as valuable marketing engines for talent and brands alike) and YouTube continues to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into its original content initiative.

Sure, the vast majority of content creators on these platforms are not making a living doing so (Machinima and Maker Studios being notable exceptions).  But the argument can be made that at the very least, short form video is a low cost, technology-enabled development and discovery tool.  Shane Dawson, Rebecca Black and the Annoying Orange owe their existence to YouTube.  So while new talent can leverage Google's ecosystem (and even dollars) to reach audience at a cost of $300 per minute, Hollywood will continue to rely on technology to create $1M/minute experiences that hope to get people to shut of their laptops and head to the theater-- and to monetize the long tail of their movies, TV shows and (gulp) digital originals.

But ultimately, what about YouTube?  Is it's abundance of cash and creativity, its real time analytics and socially-oriented feedback loop a threat to the old fashioned experience of sitting in a dark room with strangers to be taken somewhere else?  Like I said, it's complicated.

Clay Christensen on the Predictability of Digital Disruption

Innovation guru and HBS professor Clay Christensen has become famous for his theories on disruption.  The industries change but the problem remains the same.  Specifically, he asks the question "what is the right way to respond when technology disrupts the position of an established business?" Neiman Journalism Lab's Joshua Benton  posted a conversation (sound cloud included) he had with Christensen and other notables on the subject last week.  The lessons apply across industries, but should be prescient for those of us in the content business.

One highlight:

CHRISTENSEN: Yeah, well, I’m proud but also sad to say that pretty much everything that we foresaw is happening. I think we didn’t quite understand, and still don’t really understand, how quickly things fall off the cliff. I think the reason why this happens is that, even as the disruption is getting more and more steam in the marketplace, the core business persists, and really quite profitable for a very long time. Then, when the disruption gets good enough to address the needs of your customers, very quickly, all of a sudden, you go off the cliff.

Full piece HERE

Is the Press Beginning Paying Attention to Digital/VOD Content?

Conventional wisdom is if you want press for your movie, open it theatrically.  If you want  the press to pay attention to your episodic work, you better hope it's on television.  But things appear to be changing. While it's undeniable that a theatrical release opens a movie up to a wider press core than a home video or VOD/digital only release, it's also true that the press seems to be getting more and more comfortable writing about VOD and digital content.  Indiewire has started been running a monthly column calling out their top VOD picks, featuring many films that have limited, if any, theatrical prospects.  Check out this month's list.

And while the NYTimes still requires a New York theatrical opening in order to review a film and is not offering regular reviews of the latest Machinima series they have not been shy in writing about digital content.  Last week they published an article dedicated to the exclusive digital content (mostly short form comedy) HBO has been releasing on HBO Go.

Reputable movie-centric PR agencies like Falco INK have digital practices that not only focus on online press, but that take on direct to digital titles.

This is all part of a bigger question as to whether content should be defined by it's distribution.  If you're like me and don't know many people who saw Office Space or Clerks in the movie theater... or who watched Arrested Development on Fox-- but who love all of the above, you be on my side and say the answer is "no."

Prometheus and The Continued Challenege of Digital Movie Sales

This month The New York Times reported that Fox has started to experiment with windowing in order to try and drive EST (electronic sell through, aka download-to-own) revenues. Specifically, they launched Ridley Scott's sci-fi thriller PROMETHEUS for digital purchase three weeks before the October 9 DVD/VOD street date for a reduced $14.99 HD price (standard HD pricing on studio fare is $19.99). It's no secret that digital sales are struggling to make up for the steady erosion of physical media sales (translation: DVD is going the way of the CD). Why folks are not prone to buy movies digitally is up for debate but a few of the discussed reasons are as follows: (1) Price: $20 may be too much for a file that takes a long time to download (these things can be up to 5G) and is locked into a certain ecosystem. (2) Perceived Value: while iTunes extras (a desktop only version of DVD extras) and other such forms of digital bonus content are gaining traction, consumers are still not getting much more than a big, heavy file.  And as it's hard to display the digital movies you've bought at home, the self-expressive benefits of movie ownership may die with physical media. (3) Windowing: maybe people don't want to buy the file because they don't have to. If you're only going to watch the movie once or twice, VOD/digital rental is the more sensible option and currently the VOD/EST windows are one and the same.  Simply put- why buy when you can rent?

The PROMETHEUS release addresses (1) and (3) and thus far the results look pretty good. Despite only being available for purchase, the movie is currently #3 in iTunes.

The Promise of VOD

Variety published an article this week that cited the recent VOD success of Radius-TWC's first ever release BACHELORETTE (see my last post) as well as Lionsgate/Roadside release ARBITRAGE, a movie being cited as the biggest theatrical opening ever ($2M) for a day and date VOD release.  The release strategies of these two movies appear to have differences (given the modest theatrical play of 50 screens it could be argued that Radius is using theatrical to fuel VOD via the wider press core and $10 pre-theatrical VOD price point while Roadside/Lionsgate is flipping the equation using VOD to fuel theatrical)--but in many ways it's what these cases have in common that matters more. With the decline of DVD and international revenues, independent film has found itself with a crumbling revenue model.  The reality is that movies are expensive to make and often in the case of indies even more expensive to release.  And for certain films, it may be worth giving up the potential for scaling a theatrical release to thousands of screens (let's face it, that is one of the trade offs of going out on VOD first)  in order to market once and meet the audience on it's own terms.  You want to check out the movie in the theater?  Great.  On your cable system?  Sure.  Rent it on your iPad?  Done.

It can be argued that a theatrical release of an independent film has always been a loss leader for the ancillaries.  With BACHELORETTE, it's no different--except that the studio can capitalize on those ancillaries the minute people hear about the movie for the first time.  And if ARBITRAGE just proved once again that VOD drives theatrical, conventional wisdom for day and date VOD for a wider theatrical release might be that VOD can also be marketing that pays.

This is far from having played itself out but one thing I know is that these are interesting problems and I'm glad there are smart, film-lovers like the folks at Radius, Lionsgate and Roadside working on them.

EST -- What Will It Take?

While VOD continues to grow, Electronic Sell Through (EST) does not, leading many to conclude that digital ownership simply does not make sense to consumers.  One of the ways the industry has tried to course correct (a race against the clock to figure out the new model until DVD is gone completely) is by introducing Ultra Violet, an authenticated cloud-based locker that utilizes a "pay once, play anywhere" approach.  The service--deployed by a consortium of studios, cable companies, device makers and retailers--has managed to attract 800,000 users in the US.  While this is certainly not critical mass, it may be an indication that we're on the right track. But are there other levers that could be pulled to give digital sales a jump start?  The research arm of private equity trading firm BTIG released an article that suggests that the answer lies in one simple word: price.  Their argument is simply that digital files are inherently worth less than DVD.  No one seems to be buying HD movies on iTunes for $20 but would they for $10?  It's certainly a much more reasonable upsell from the $4 rental customers are considering side by side in the same digital storefront.  But is this incremental revenue or further cannibalization of DVD?  All fair questions that will only start to be answered as studios and content owners start to push and pull these windows.  For example, FOX is releasing Prometheus digitally two weeks ahead of the DVD release at an HD price of $15.  Things could start getting interesting.

Check out the whole piece here (registration required).

Weissman & Hirschhorn on Disruption in Film and Media [VIDEO]

In THIS talk, Andrew Weissman (Union Square Ventures) and Jason Hirschhorn (Media ReDEFined) discuss the new tools available to filmmakers in this brave new (internet and social) world. It's well worth taking the time to watch the whole talk but if you can't, my three takeaways:

1. The cost structure of releasing films needs to be challenged. The biggest opportunity is in marketing and using social media to reach people more cheaply and efficiently. These changes will be difficult and painful as the current cost structure supports an entire industry.
2. Windowing allows revenues to be maximized but it hurts the user experience. The industry needs to be much more focused on giving a better experience to the fans.
3. Filmmaking is more entrepreneurial than ever as artists have to be creative on the fund raising, storytelling and deal making sides of the business.

3 TRANSMEDIA WINS

This week the Tribeca Film Institute and the Ford Foundation announced that they would award $400K in New Media grants to a range of amazing projects. Among other things, this represents further evidence of the evolving state of content and storytelling. Feature films, twitter feeds, articles, mobile games-- all fall under the expanding definition of "content". And while the film and TV industries have challenges ahead in continuing to find ways to monetize their content in the face of so many fee alternatives, storytellers seem to have more tools than ever to tell and expand their stories. Here are a few examples of transmedia (definition: several media serving a single narrative) done right. These examples blur the lines between content and marketing, branding and entertainment… but than anything they suggest what is possible for filmmaker and storytellers looking to break out of the single screen canvas.

Enjoy.

1. RCVR

Billed as X-Files meets Lost, this Motorolla-sponsored web series produced by top YouTube channel Machinima follows covert government agents as they seek to suppress the truth about extraterrestrial encounters. In addition to the six episode web series, the narrative was carried out over several websites such as www.sigma-agency.org, an official-looking government website for the series' harboring government entity. Additionally, the narrative expanded via a series of twitter feeds (such as that of Alvin J. Peters--@ProjectRCVR). The series racked up more than 6M views in just a few weeks.

2. YEAR ZERO

A 2007 album by industrial rockers Nine Inch Nails, Year Zero was a self described concept album that criticized the contemporary policies of the US government by presenting a dystopian vision of the year 2022. The marketing campaign around the release of the record was nothing short of ground breaking, which included USB drives in rock club bathrooms that contained passwords for secret websites and leaked documents pertaining to the album's narrative. T shirts were sold with messages, also tied to unique URLs and alternate reality games emerged to allow fans to live in the world of the album. The album debuted at #2 on the Billboard Top 100 selling 180K+ copies in its first week. NIN founder Trent Reznor is also rumored to be working on a Year Zero miniseries with BBC Productions for HBO.

3. THE WALKING DEAD

What in three seasons has become a global television phenomenon began as an award-winning comic series from Image Comics. The post-apocalyptic drama has steadily expanded its story into other media, including games and web series-- allowing airing network AMC to further engage die-hards to the series and to bridge viewers between seasons. In addition to the franchise's growing list of mobile and social games, AMCtv.com launched The Walking Dead: Torn Apart a six episode web series directed by Greg Nicotero that explores the origin story of Hannah, aka Bicycle Girl, the infamous zombie from Season 1. A second web series is in the works.

5 Reasons BACHELORETTE'S Early VOD Success Matters

In advance of next month's theatrical run, Radius-TWC's first pickup, Bachelorette debuted at #1 in the iTunes charts and is already generating healthy revenues (a reported $500K in the first three days).  While it's admittedly a bit early for analysis, this is a great bit of news as the industry tries to understand the power and potential of VOD.  This development is significant for many reasons... To name a few:

(1) No P&A. The movie is grabbing attention and earning revenue (of the low fixed cost digital variety, by the way) without the benefit of a studio-sized P&A spend. Radius-TWC has maintained itself as a multi-platform--as opposed to direct to VOD--arm.  To that end, if the theatrical works, this strategy will be seen as further proof for a model we all want to work... and the pre-theatrical VOD window may start to catch on as "marketing that pays."

(2) Pricing is king. Some are skeptical of the $9.99 "Ultra VOD" pricing model given that studio fare typically rents for $3.99 in the VOD window ("why rent a small movie for $10 when you can rent The Avengers for less than half the price?"). But on the flip side, there are those that maintain that great content in an early window deserves a premium price.  There is also the argument that $10 is still a deal given the cost and effort required to get to the theater.  In this case, the price point doesn't appear to be scaring audiences away... a glimmer of hope for those hoping VOD is the savior of independent film.

(3) Female-driven comedy continues to connect. While some are pointing out that a few of our biggest comedic stars appear to be falling from the sky, audiences continue to be interested in hilarious women in interesting roles.

(4) iTunes/VOD is a discovery platform. Without the ability to outspend studios, smaller films depend, in part, on editorial support from distribution partners to get discovered.  The combination of a strong PR presence (see: free marketing) and iTunes' support (the film has masthead placement alongside the likes of Battleship and The Dictator) seems to have been enough to allow audiences to connect the dots and discover this film.

(5) No one knows anything (except maybe Tom and Jason). While Radius-TWC co-Presidents Tom Quinn and Jason Janego are not new to multi-platform distribution (they developed and perfected the model at Magnolia), parts of the industry seem to be catching up to the idea that the marketing and distribution for an independent film can be as special, unique and tailored as the content itself.  The early success of Bachelorette might just advance the argument in favor of flexibility and experimentation as opposed to restricted windows and pricing.

Four Stories That Show Content Is Changing

Burning Love - the final chapterThis week marked the final episode of what might be my favorite web series of all time. Yahoo made a huge splash with this original web series and I would go so far as to say this one--produced by Ben Stiller's Red Hour Films-- may have been a game changer in terms of getting people to look differently at the digital content space. http://screen.yahoo.com/burning-love/

Hulu - The Booth At The End Vuguru TV/New Media studio Vuguru launches season 2 of it's acclaimed series The Booth At The End on Hulu. If you've been on the site, you'll notice the prime real estate the series has on the platform's masthead (impressive considering it's competing with network and studio content).

http://www.hulu.com/the-booth-at-the-end

Netflix begins production of new season of Arrested Development Need I say more?

Fanhattan 2.0 A major update comes to arguably the best content discovery app on iOS. Fanhattan may not be the ultimate answer, but it suggests a world where all your accounts are tied into one beautiful interface and all your content is accessible and discoverable. And word is that a desktop version is on it's way... download now and stay tuned. http://www.fanhattan.com/

Are movie studios going the way of the dinosaurs?

CNBC posted an article this week that stepped, one by one, through the supposed core functions of a movie studio to showed the ways they are being disrupted. Allow me to paraphrase...

• FINANCE: co-financing deals are in abundance and companies like Netflix and Amazon are diving headfirst into the original content game (see the upcoming David Fincher/Kevin Spacey original series 'House of Cards'). In simplest terms, anyone can write a check.

• PRODUCTION: Digital technology has made production less expensive than ever. You no longer need a movie studio to get your hands on a camera.

• DISTRIBUTION: As home video turns into 1's and 0's, distribution is being democratized in a big way. With the right deals in place, a new player can distribute a film into almost every American home for virtually no cost (via Cable and Broadband VOD providers and game consoles).  Furthermore, audiences are becoming more willing to consume their content on smaller, more personal screens.  There may be no substitute for theatrical but even companies like Tugg are starting to emerge with models that diffuse exhibitor risk by letting audiences demand and organize screenings for the film gets booked.

• MARKETING: This arguably the strongest and only remaining true core competency that the studios retain. Thus far, social media and digital marketing has not replaced the 8-9 figure ad spends that studios are using to launch tent poles... but if marketing is the only differentiation, will we see these behemoths spend each other into the ground trying to explain what John Carter and Battleship are actually about?

As the music labels struggle to reinvent themselves as artists no longer need them to make records or connect with their fans, the movie studios have a major challenge ahead. How can they harness the technology that is tearing down the walls they have build to run more efficiently and do what they are supposed to be good at... creating, distributing and marketing great entertainment?  Lest they go the way of the labels, the magazines, the dinosaurs.

Full article here 

Weekend of July 17 - US B.O. vs. Indie B.O.

US BOX OFFICE- WEEKEND OF JULY 17

TW

LW

Title (click to view)

Studio

Weekend Gross

% Change

Theater Count /Change

Average

Total Gross

Budget*

Week #

1	N	Ice Age: Continental Drift	Fox	$46,629,259	-	3,881	-	$12,015	$46,629,259	-	1
2	1	The Amazing Spider-Man	Sony	$34,628,104	-44.2%	4,318	-	$8,019	$200,500,351	$230	2
3	2	Ted	Uni.	$22,410,855	-30.4%	3,303	+47	$6,785	$159,257,250	$50	3
4	3	Brave	BV	$11,160,522	-43.1%	3,392	-499	$3,290	$196,061,319	$185	4
5	4	Savages (2012)	Uni.	$9,393,840	-41.4%	2,635	+7	$3,565	$32,125,290	$45	2

US INDIE BOX OFFICE- WEEKEND OF JULY 17

TITLE	DISTRIBUTOR	LOCATIONS	GROSS	PER LOCATION	OVERALL GROSS
Moonrise Kingdom	Focus Features	924	$3,704,507	$4,009	$32,483,002
To Rome With Love	Sony Pictures Classics	744	$2,469,235	$3,319	$8,587,862
Bernie	Millennium Entertainment	103	$215,932	$2,096	$8,106,280
Intouchables	The Weinstein Company	83	$356,333	$4,293	$3,581,488
Beasts Of The Southern Wild	Fox Searchlight	81	$790,535	$9,760	$1,692,675

Some thoughts:

Top 5 movies in the country had a stronger per screen average than the top 5 indies ($6,735 vs. $4,695), despite the latter categories' much-reduced theater counts.  "Ice Age"'s 12K/screen is flat out impressive, as is the nearly 10K/screen pulled in by the expanding "Beasts of the Southern Wild."

No surprise that critics preferred the indie offerings, but not by as much as you might think.  Top 5 indies boast a 79% Rotten Tomatoes average (hurt by the "To Rome With Love" score of 44%) vs. 70% for the domestic top 5.  The idea that 70% of critics liked the top 5 movies in the country over a summer weekend seems remarkable.  I'll take it.

Overall a good weekend for well-liked movies.

5 Startups Changing the Film Industry

1. Kickstarter While the impact Kickstarter has had on indie film financing and distribution is hardly a new story, no list would be complete without a mention of this massively influential crowd-funding platform. Kickstarter claims no ownership over the projects it helps, opting instead for a percentage of funds raised. According to Wikipedia, as of July 03, 2012, there were over 62,000 launched projects (3,973 in progress), with a success rate of 44%. The completed successful projects had raised a total of $229M.

2. Tugg

In short: crowd sourced exhibition. Tugg is a platform that allows users to create film events at their local theaters, and harness their social networks to drive the required RSVP numbers that allow the film to play. It takes the risk of distributing a small film off the exhibitors (attendance is guaranteed) and offers a new self-distribution model for independent filmmakers while bringing unique films to local theaters. When Tugg works, everyone wins.

3.  Milyoni

Considered one of the leaders in social entertainment, Milyoni helps customers convert social media fans into paying customers. They have created "social VOD experiences"--featuring a VOD movie enhanced with games and sharable features--for Miramax (Pulp Fiction), Magnolia Pictures (Marley) and Universal Pictures (The Big Lebowski). In partnership with Starz Media they recently launched the first every 3D movie on Facebook (Dimension's Piranha 3DD) day and date with its theatrical release. Milyoni is betting on Facebook as the next great place to watch movies and they are leading the charge to make the experience unique and social.

4. MoPix

Filling the gaps of digital self-distribution and digital bonus features, MoPix allows content creators of all kinds (independent filmmakers, chefs, fitness instructors) to distribute video and related content via the app equivalent of special edition DVD's. Numbers show that digital ownership is having a tough time catching on but this kind of thinking may help reverse the trend.

5. Viggle

Buzz-worthy social TV startup Viggle is built around a loyalty rewards program for watching TV that offers real world rewards--from movie tickets to gift cards at iTunes and Amazon--for watching your favorite shows. The longer you keep watching (Viggle's finger-printing technology can tell) the more you earn.  I would not be surprised if companies like this start seeing chunks of studio P&A spends in the near future.

The changing tide of digital distribution (June 2012)

A glance at the trades tells us everything we need to know about the current state of independent film distribution... it's changing. Cases and points:

Title: BIG EASY EXPRESS

• What: A music documentary that follows a ten-day road trip (via train) with Mumford and Sons, Edward Sharpe & the Magnetic Zeros, and Old Crow Medicine Show
• Release: "Run in reverse" method by which the film debuts on iTunes today as an exclusive.  Press and attention is white hot and iTunes is cross promoting the title alongside music by the artists, all of whom seem natural fits for the iTunes audience.  DVD/BluRay is to follow next month, followed by digital/VOD at a later date.
• The Takeaway: One great partner can be the difference-maker in terms of a successful launch.

Title: 1,2,3... FRANKIE GO BOOM!

• What: A comedy starring Charlie Hunnam, Lizzy Kaplan, Chris O'Dowd, Chris Noth and Whitney Cummings that premiered at SXSW.
• Release: Through a new joint venture between  Variance Films (a theatrical distributor) and Gravitas (a digital one), the film will premiere on VOD in September, followed by a theatrical release in October.
• The Takeaway: The Magnolia premiere on VOD model is spreading downstream.

Title: THE PAPERBOY

• What: Lee Daniels' controversial follow up to the critically and financially successful Precious, the movie is an erotic thriller starring Zach Efron, Nicole Kidman, Macy Gray and John Cusack.
• Release: After failing to receive an acceptable post-Cannes offer, Millenium Entertainment will be self-distributing the title in the fall.
• The Takeaway: Even specialty distributors are exercising extreme caution in picking up risky titles.  For such movies, the distribution may have to get as creative as the material itself.

Death of the Movie Star?... or not

This weekend, two new wide releases--movies that on paper would have looked like as sure a thing as Hollywood could hope for--rolled into theaters and landed with a thud. The first was "Rock of Ages," a fun and music-fueled romp based on a blockbuster musical and starring a strong ensemble cast with Tom Cruise at the center. The second was "That's My Boy"-- an Adam Sandler movie that looks about as Adam Sandler as movies get. Despite once high hopes for New Line and Sony, these titles came in at $15M and $13M respectively, beaten swiftly for the top spot by Dreamworks' second frame of "Madagascar 3." Every time this happens (and it has happened before and will happen again), there are countless articles written about the death of the Star System as Hollywood knows it. It may just not be that simple and perhaps it all just goes to prove William Goldwyn's point that "no one knows anything." But still... hard to wonder after looking at these numbers whether some re-balancing is in order.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2012/06/17/death-of-the-movie-star/

Producers of 'Tree of Life,' 'Blue Valentine,' 'Paradise Lost' Share Insights on How to Get Your Movie Made

In a session at the PGA's annual Produced by Conference SnagFilms CEO Rick Allen put a great group together to discuss the new ways films are being funded (ahem, Kickstarter) and distributed (take your pick). My favorite excerpt below:

Eventually, the conversation shifted toward non-traditional methods of distribution in an expanding digital environment. Echoing sentiments expressed at the conference by "Dark Knight" director Christopher Nolan earlier in the day, the panelists noted that the theatrical experience continues to wane in the face of increased availability of high-tech home theater systems. And Green spoke about how Malick's “The Tree of Life” crested on the first wave of Tugg, the online service that allows communities to fund and request screenings in their local theaters.

The upshot of all the new avenues for distribution, according to Howell, is that the longer the film stays in the public consciousness, the longer a producer’s role extends. “A producer works on a film like this for a long period of time with no money, working 24 hours a day,” she said. “You have to be committed to giving up that time – a year to a year and a half of your life – to making it.”

Full article from INDIEWIRE here.