Great Article About Film Fundraising

Director Pete Chapmon

Kickstarter - A Blessing or A Curse?

By Pete Chapmon | Shadow & Act

I recently did an experiment, keeping a tally of how many Kickstarter orIndiegogo campaigns I was given the "opportunity" to support over a 2 week period. The answer? 11. 

I'll tell you why I think that's crazy in a moment, but first, I'd like to provide a few details into my own filmmaking journey so you can "consider the source", as wise folks always say.

I started making films in the 11th grade at Columbia High School inMaplewood, NJ. I'm talking about shooting on Super8mm film...developing it myself...editing on a moviola -- it was awesome. My 16 year old ideas didn't require much money, partly because I did not have an allowance or a crew, but they still served to help me learn what I could.

I went to NYU undergraduate film school, making countless projects, but for the purposes of this post, I'll reference my senior thesis "3D" -- a film that starred Kerry Washington, Dorian Missick, Al Thompson, and Charles Parnell and for which I had to raise $24,000. That was quite the jump from my junior year film that cost $700, but it was a helluva intro to fundraising, marketing, and pitching to strangers. I learned that whether you're asking for $1 or $1000, you better know what you're talking about and not expect folks to help you out just because they know you or, real talk -- are family. I also learned the importance of legal documents after dealing with some shady music business people, but that's another post too, and of course, Industry Rule #4080.

After taking "3D" to Sundance and several other festivals, I began plotting every filmmaker's inevitable next step -- how to raise money for my feature debut "Premium". We started with a budget of around $3MM, which turned into$1.5MM, morphed into $750K, and eventually plateaued at $520K. Being neither rich, nor wealthy, the immediate question became, "where we gonna get that dough from, y'all?" This was 22 times more money than my previous project and my network hadn't really grown any. We had the talented Dorian Missick attached, some great key crew with much more experience than myself, and a commitment to make it happen by hook or crook. But, that didn't provide a roadmap to raising the money. There was no YouTube or Vimeo. No Kickstarter or Indiegogo. It was 2005. 

So, how did we do it? 

My producing partner, Kevin Frakes, and I put together a thorough business plan that outlined the who, what, why, and how behind all of our choices. We educated potential investors on the filmmaking process, the entertainment industry, and provided a clear answer toward every possible question, especially how the money would be spent and how they would be repaid if they invested. Forbes magazine  eventually profiled me in their investment guide after we reached our funding goal. 

We dedicated just as much effort to compiling a creative package to support the project. Think "Kickstarter Video" before the term ever existed. I produced an electronic press kit (EPK) featuring interviews from key cast and crew I'd worked with on various short films, intercutting clips from them in my work next to say, Dorian in a scene with Hugh Grant from "Two Weeks Notice". I also made a short film, "Confessions of Cool" designed to set up folks to fully understand the script from page one. I even threw parties, exclusive investor presentations, and brought my laptop into people's kitchen's on weekends, walking them through my Powerpoint slides.

All of these things, and many other finer points, combined to help us meet our goal with the help of 35 people. Investments ranged from $5,000 to $100,000, and it made me realize that people do actually want to support, you just have to do your job of shaping the path to a mutually beneficial final result. If you don't think people are investing in you for selfish reasons, then you should stop reading this right now.

Which brings me back to my point about why those 11 Kickstarter "opportunities" is crazy. I've broken it down into 3 areas:

1) Not every artist seems to have asked themselves the straight-up-no-bullshit question, "would I give this project money based off of the presentation that I see here?" I feel safe saying that many of these folks would not. And that's exactly why I won't either.

2) Many people seem to be crowdsourcing because it's there, waiting for foolish friends and family that just might help them make something they wouldn't otherwise put much effort toward. They're also not using it to their advantage when thinking about how best to exploit it. It's no different than the ease of web coding making folks create websites that they wouldn't otherwise make if it took any real effort and planning.

3) Not everyone is at a point where they should even be asking for money. No one should receive an email that, at its basic level, is asking another person to pay for their PRACTICE. Have you found your voice? Do you have more than an elementary understanding of film language and storytelling? Have you considered not only the market for your project, but the marketing? Please stop thinking your every whim should be bankrolled by your "network". Skin in the game is proof of passion and dedication and when it's not there, it's more than transparent.

I understand it's not 2005 anymore. The world has changed and I'm happy about the democratization of all these disciplines. But, as someone who has raised money in the more "hand to hand combat" sense, I look at Kickstarter/Indiegogo with wide eyes as I imagine how much MORE I might have raised for "Premium" had the platform been available to me. It's not just about checking online to see who pledged how much, it's about using these crowdsourcing platforms to power a well thought out creative product with a thorough business plan and marketing strategy. It's there to make it easier to connect with those that might find supporting your project something that aligns with their interests and it makes it possible for folks you'll never meet face-to-face to contribute with the click of a button. That's what's up.

The gatekeepers, to all of our applause, have been removed, "allowing" us to do things never before possible. But, let's not forget the value of what they provide when politics, race, and nepotism aren't ingredients in the process. Studios and agents search for material that is well written and fits into the marketplace. Smaller production companies do the same, oftentimes with more of a focus on niche markets and more challenging material. Both work to get the best talent on board, develop the script to its best draft, and harness the power of their dollar to make sure the world knows a project is in the pipeline and folks should be excited!

Before you decide to swipe that Visa at B&H Photo and cop yourself a videocamera, computer, and editing system, I hope and trust that you will put your project through the same set of gatekeeper checks and balances to ensure that you are not diving in before it's ready. There's no glory in volume if the shit ain't tight. And there's no such thing as a beta version of film. When it's made, it's made, and you will be judged. Oh how I know, lol.

The point of this all is not to attack. I hope there are some worthy nuggets that can be applied to your own projects, but also shared with anybody who might be hitting you up for a contribution but maybe isn't quite ready themselves. Don't just mumble under your breath, "here we go, another mutha...". If you know them, let them know, and tell them you're here when it's time.

Personally, Candice Sanchez McFarlane and I are about to embark upon the fundraising/producing journey again with our heist script "$FREE.99" and I invite you to check in here on Shadow & Act regularly as I provide a window into the upcoming process.

The world is a better place with more stories in it -- but there are two missing words from this sentence.

The world is a better place with more stories TOLD WELL. 

Let's make it happen.

You can read comments about the article including mine at Shadow & Act by clicking their logo below

Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series with Matthew Cherry

Last summer I read their Filmmaker Diary Series and not only was it detailed in the filmmaking process, it also introduced me to a film I’m now interested in seeing.

As you can tell by the other posts on this blog, we are also committed to sharing information on the filmmaking process like the equally minded great site Shadow & Act.

The basis for the diaries is The Last Fall a film starring Lance Gross and Nicole Beharie.

In the diaries the writer/director Matthew Cherry covers the three stages of production PRE PRODUCTION, PRODUCTION and POST PRODUCTION and offers many personal revelations into his own life as it relates to getting the film made. One revelation is as personal as you can get and may have deterred him from making the film had he not had the presence of mind to persevere. Alas you have to read the diaries to see what I mean.

The Synopsis for The Last Fall is:
After several years of playing professional football as an undrafted free agent, 25 year-old Kyle Bishop (Lance Gross) is released from his fourth team in three years and returns to his home town, broke and at a complete loss about what he will do next. Kyle eventually reconnects with friends, family and an old high school sweetheart Faith Davis (Nicole Beharie).

Without further ado I have listed and linked the diaries in chronological order and you can see for yourself how hard it is to get an independent film made. Kudos to Shadow & Act and Mathew Cherry for a worthwhile series.

Introducing The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (With Matthew Cherry) May 13, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 2: "We're Funded. Now Casting!" May 20, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 3: "REST IN PEACE!" May 27, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 4: "PRE-PRODUCTION WEEK 4!" June 6, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 5: "ATTACHING TALENT" June 10, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 6: "AUDITIONS" June 17, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 7: "Three Weeks and Counting" June 27, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 8: "Meet Our Leads" July 1, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/Matthew Cherry) Episode 9: "Three Days Away" July 8, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 10: "On the Set" July 15, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 11: "Filming Week 2" July 25, 2011 The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series (w/ Matthew Cherry) Episode 12: "Last Week Of Filming" July 29, 2011 Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series w/ Matthew Cherry, Episode 13: "Post Production Wk 1" (VIDEO) August 5, 2011 Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series w/ Matthew Cherry, Weeks 14/15: "Post Production Wk 2/3" August 19, 2011 S & A Filmmaker Diary Series w/ Matthew Cherry "Post Production" (Pick-up Days, Final Cut + Docu) September 30, 2011 Shadow And Act Filmmaker Diary Series w/ Matthew Cherry: "Currently Seeking Distribution" November 11, 2011

You can access ALL The Shadow & Act Filmmaker Diary Series including diaries from other filmmakers HERE

Great Interviews About Film Distribution

I have written at length on this blog about how important film distribution is (Starting with my post Why Distribution is Important).

In April 2012 in a span of about 2 weeks on the indiewire blog Shadow & Act, their Chief Editor & Writer Tambay A. Obenson conducted interviews with people responsible for distributing and marketing black films, two of them to much success and one prepared to be distributed. 

At Shadow & Act are the interviews as well as comments about the interviews. I urge you to check them out as well as the posts here on our blog about distribution.

APRIL 16, 2012

Exclusive: CodeBlack CEO Jeff Clanagan Talks Successful Release Strategy For "Woman Thou Art Loosed: On The 7th Day"

Read it here

APRIL 22, 2012

"Think Like A Man" Producer Will Packer Talks To S&A About The Film's Strong Opening Weekend + "No Good Deed"

Read it here

APRIL 27, 2012

Exclusive: Variance Films Chief Talks "Red Hook Summer" & Its Upcoming Release (Expect a "Tighter" Film)

Read it here

RELATED LINKS
ALL of our posts about distribution are here

Pondering The Seemingly Dismal Outlook For Black Filmmakers Working Within The Hollywood Studio System

By Tambay
Shadow & Act
March 16, 2012

Looking over the top 300 grossing films of 2011 released in the USA (via Box Office Mojo), just 6 of those 300 titles were directed by black directors – Madea’s Big Happy Family, Jumping The Broom, Laugh At My Pain, Shame, Pariah and Mooz-lum.

And of those 6 films, only 2 of them are what we'd call purely Hollywood studio-backed productions - Madea’s Big Happy Family (Tyler Perry's deal with Lionsgate) and Jumping The Broom (Sony/Tristar).

Box Office Mojo lists a total of 598 movies released in theaters in 2011; however, I don’t think I need to go through the entire list of films to make my point, which should be obvious.

In recent days, we’ve seen projects from the likes of Spike Lee (Da Brick) getting passed over by HBO, and F. Gary Gray replaced as helmer of The Last Days Of American Crime (a project he’d been attached to direct since it was first announced early last year).

Other veterans like Antoine Fuqua and John Singleton have been attached to, and then later unattached from various projects.

Of course I should note that there are reasons why none of these *attachments* was seen all the way through; reasons that aren't always necessarily made entirely public.

And these are just the men by the way; black women directors have fared even worse. They don’t even seem to get mentioned in "who-to-hire" conversations. When was the last time a black woman director’s name was on any short list for any studio-backed feature project?

I won’t bore you with info that you’ve likely already heard enough of – specifically, Hollywood’s so-called "diversity problem," a topic that’s been discussed and analyzed ad naseam. One would think that black directors wouldn’t face similar hurdles that black actors do, if only because they are behind the camera; I’m of course taking into consideration Hollywood’s perceived *aversion* to casting black actors in especially lead/prominent roles, because black faces supposedly don’t sell as well.

But what about black directors?

Every week (if not almost daily), I read reports on Deadline, Hollywood Reporter or Variety announcing some young, relatively unknown, almost always white filmmaker, with often just a single feature film on their resume, getting the opportunity to direct some hefty-budgeted, high-profile, star-driven film, as their second feature. These opportunities just don’t seem to be as available/afforded to non-white (specifically black filmmakers).

I pause and think of all the young black directors we’ve profiled here on S&A in recent years, and, to be frank, I wonder what will become of all of them, given how challenging the climate seems to be for all filmmakers, but seemingly more-so for filmmakers of color, and even more specifically, filmmakers of color making films about people of color.

I’m sure some of them (certainly not all) aspire to work within the studio system, or some studio/indie hybrid, making films primarily about characters that look like them; and if that’s your goal, how do you maintain your optimism?

How do you observe the inconsistent careers of some of our most notable black directors, as you make advances (no matter how small) in yours?

Take into consideration the names I mentioned above (and others); the last time Antoine Fuqua was behind the camera for a feature film project was in 2008 for Brooklyn’s Finest (eventually released in 2009) – almost 4 years ago; Spike Lee’s last big screen project was Miracle At St Anna, which was released in 2008, although, really, it was shot in 2007 – almost 5 years ago (I’m obviously not counting the docs; and yes, he’s got Red Hook Summer coming up, which he shot last year; but really, it’s a mighty mess of a project, and Spike reportedly financed it from his own bank account); F. Gary Gray’s was in 2009 with Law Abiding Citizen; John Singleton’s most recent was last year – Abduction (which was terrible, though not entirely his fault; the script is where it begins). But the period before that movie, really tells the tale; before Abduction, Singleton’s last effort behind the camera was Four Brothers, some 5 to 6 years prior.

You have to wonder what happens during these large chunks of time between projects; meanwhile, Tyler Perry cranks out 2 (or more) a year.

And there are others – Kasi Lemmons, the Hughes Brothers (who’ve also been attached to a handful of projects since From Hell in 2001, later seeing Denzel Washington in Book Of Eli all the way through; both of them are currently attached to separate projects; but only Allen’s seems as close to a sure-thing right now, since it’s in post-production).

After Precious, Lee Daniels piled up on a handful of projects, and didn’t eventually go into production on any of them until 2 years after that film was released.

Salim Akil didn’t waste much time before diving into his Sparkle remake, after Jumping The Broom last year; although I’d have loved an original project based on an original idea, instead of a retread.

Of course, there’s Steve McQueen who’s on to his next project, post-Shame – the slave narrative with Chiwetel Ejiofor, which will be McQueen’s first film with a black lead.

Who else? Malcolm Lee, Tim Story, Carl Franklin, Gina Prince-Bythewood, Angela Robinson, and Chris Rock, who has gotten into the directing game himself, though nothing in the works currently.

There are others, but I think you'll find similar stories of long periods of inactivity.

And then there are talents like Seith Mann who’s been toiling away rather quietly in TV land, directing episodes of numerous television shows which certainly assists him in continuing to hone his skills, as well as put money in his bank account; however, Seith also has 2 feature film projects (1 he’s been trying to get financed and off the ground for a while now) that I’m sure he’d like to see realized sooner than later. And I have to wonder if he's ever even considered for some of these director-for-hire studio feature films.

I’m obviously not including the names of those independent black filmmakers who’ve emerged in the last couple of years or so (we've written about, and continue to write about them all as they progress), working chiefly outside the studio system; despite any early successes, it's not entirely certain what their individual careers will look like in coming years. But this post isn’t necessarily about them.

I’m really just looking at, and trying to make sense of the plight of those, what I’d call, primarily veteran, *industry* black directors/filmmakers; what to make of it all – their seeming lack of productivity; the lack of opportunities available to them compared to their white contemporaries. Because other than Tyler Perry, I think you’ll have difficulty coming up with another black filmmaker whose output has been as consistent, or even coming close to being as consistent as Perry’s has been since he first burst onto the scene some 7 years ago.

Since his debut, Diary Of A Mad Black Woman in 2005, Perry has helmed 12 feature films, all released in theaters. That’s more than John Singleton has done his entire career since Boyz In The Hood over 20 years ago. Comparisons between Perry and other filmmakers I’ve mentioned here will look very similar; in some cases, the differences in output are much more pronounced.

So it baffles me when I read about new projects like the Will Smith/Denzel Washington remake of Uptown Saturday Night (what we could call, for a number of reasons, a quintessentially black film) being given to white writers to pen the scripts for, and white filmmakers to direct, when there are more than capable black writers and directors who could most certainly use the work, as well as the paychecks.

It’s even more of a head-scratcher when you take into consideration the fact that the men responsible for the project becoming a reality – Will Smith and Denzel Washington (although primarily Smith it appears) – are on that really short list of elite, powerful industry talents (who also happen to be black), who are probably in a position to ensure that those key positions go to writers/directors of their choosing; or at least have enough leverage to fight for the hiring of talents they prefer to work with; after all, it’s not like the writer and director who were indeed hired to work on the project are what you’d call *names;* this isn’t a movie that will be sold on the strength of the names of the talents behind the camera, so why not push for any of the directors I’ve mentioned in this post (or *gasp* give a young African American up-and-comer with proven talent an opportunity, just as we’ve seen, and continue to see upstart white filmmakers get these kinds of career breaks).

I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers to this crisis – yes, I’m calling it a crisis, as extreme as the word might sound. The obvious solution is that these filmmakers (if they haven’t already) become more proactive in their efforts, as in looking outside the studio system for opportunities, or funding, for their own personal projects. But I understand that it's much easier said than done; financiers everywhere still have strict rules that determine what projects they invest their money in; although I’d say that the rigid numbers game that seems to govern studio financing/greenlighting may not be as defined outside of that system.

Of all the directors I’ve named here (and others unnamed who fit the criteria), very few have definite projects in development right now – films that have been greenlit, cast, and are scheduled to begin production within the next year or two. Some may find themselves without work even longer - maybe settling for the occasional TV gig, commercial work, music videos and the like. Nice to have the paycheck at least; but not really the kind of directing I'd guess most of them would prefer to do.

"We just want the same opportunities, and chances," as I've heard/read some black filmmakers say.

An interesting note is that, if you take a look at the top 10 grossing films so far this year, 2012, none of them was directed by what we’d call a *name* director; in fact, I’d say that most of you wouldn’t even recognize the names of many, if not all of these directors - Chris Renaud, Michael Sucsy, Daniel Espinosa, Brad Peyton, Baltasar Kormakur, Josh Trank, Mars Marlind, Mike McCoy, William Brent Bell, and James Watkins.

Any of them sound familiar? Maybe Espinosa, since he helmed Safe House with Denzel Washington; and I should note that Espinosa is one of those aforementioned young directors given a mega-million dollar star-driven project to direct primarily on the strength of his last feature film – the Swedish thriller Snabba Cash (Easy Money) which hasn’t even been released in the states yet (it’ll be in theaters stateside in July). For his Hollywood studio debut, the 34-year-old was given an $85 million budget, Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds in what, as I said in my review of the film, was really a lackluster effort. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's soon announced that the young director is attached to helm another similar high-profile project.

How many black filmmakers/directors can you name who have been given that kind of opportunity (budget and star power) to prove themselves so early in their careers?

Do studios see black filmmakers as black people first, and as filmmakers second? Meaning, are black filmmakers only viewed as being suitable to direct "black films?"

Although, as we've seen in the past (and as I noted earlier in this post), even "black films" don't always get the opportunity to be directed by black filmmakers. So what you'd think is sacred ground, where black filmmakers can at least guarantee that they'll be considered for directing work, isn't so sacred anymore, if it ever even previously was.

So as a black filmmaker, not only are you not on the short list of names to direct non-race-specific films, but you're also not necessarily always in consideration to direct race-specific (black) films. What's a black filmmaker working within the studio system to do?

I wish I had a direct line to some of these folks, so that I could just pick up the phone, call them and ask what each is up to currently, how they view the somewhat precarious industry situation they find themselves in, and how they plan to deal with it all; how does one eat and pay bills between projects when you're a Kasi Lemmons (for example), and the last film you directed was 6 years ago, and since then, your only credit (according to IMDB anyway) is an acting gig in Waist Deep playing (as the film's credits list her character as) "Angry Black Woman."

Alas I don’t have that kind of direct/immediate access to these folks to ask all these questions, so all I can do is speculate based on the evidence in front of me.

And as already noted, the outlook for the majority of them looks rather bleak from the outside.


Read the TON of comments about this article at Shadow & Act by clicking their logo below

______________________________________________________

You can also CLICK the graphic below to see all of our blog posts about diversity

Protecting Your Script and It's Not About Copyrights

John Singleton circa 1991

"In this business you get hired for your vision, and your vision begins with your script. I'm a writer first, and I direct in order to protect my vision." John Singleton, New York Times Magazine, 1991. (cover pictured below)

 That above quote exemplifies why I transferred from Morgan State University , where I studied screenwriting, to Towson University where I studied film and directing…to protect my vision.

Another Hollywood Story of Trials & Tribulations

Another great article about the business of Hollywood

The cast of Lost

Every time ABC runs an episode of its hit TV series Lost, Evanston's Jeffrey Lieber gets an onscreen credit and his bank account gets a nice pop. But the twisting tale of his Hollywood triumph has left Lieber feeling a bit ... well, lost.  

 Lieber's success should lend itself to a heartwarming tale about a local kid who defied odds and made it big in show business. But the story is not that simple. In the Chutes & Ladders world that is Hollywood, Lieber finds his biggest triumph discomfiting. The network fired him after he wrote Lost's original series pilot. He doesn't know the crew or cast. He has never visited the writers' offices for the show and never set foot on the set in Hawaii, where much of the series is shot. Lieber won his credit only after a fight for recognition with ABC.  

 Nobody needs to feel sorry for Jeffrey Lieber: because of that successful arbitration, Lost has served him quite well financially. But he finds that a hollow victory. "It's money for therapy," he says, with a laugh. 

Read the whole article by David Bernstein @ ChicagoMag.com here

The Business of Show Business

One of my favorite quotes describing the business of show business is below

Well, it's called "show business", it's not called "show". Even though it's called "show business", ain't no business, no show. You know, they ought to call it "business show", actually. - Denzel Washington

I just read an excellent recent article describing how that business works. Making movies isn't all about creative part of making it, but the financial part of it. As Denzel put it, IT IS a business.

'Twilight' Money: How Summit Plans to Make $1.2B Off 'Breaking Dawn'

By Brent Lang at

Nov 17, 2011 6:59pm EST

EXCLUSIVE


“The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn -- Part 1” is on its way to a massive opening at midnight, but as confidential documents obtained by TheWrap demonstrate, the movie’s backers have lofty expectations for equally gargantuan profits.

Experts estimate that “Breaking Dawn” will have to take in about $650 million at the worldwide box office to reach the $228 million in profit that Summit Entertainment, the studio behind the franchise, projected in an investor prospectus obtained by TheWrap.

The document, used to raise $750 million last spring, projected that the final two films in the franchise would generate more than $1.2 billion in revenues and $447 million in profits for the studio and its investors.

That number does not appear to be out of reach. The last two "Twilight" movies grossed roughly $700 million each in worldwide box office, and the latest installment is expected to take in up to $140 million domestically this weekend.

The studio won’t be alone in raking in cash. The three stars of the series -- Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner -- will reportedly get $25 million each for performing in the last two "Twilight" films against 7.5 percent of the theatrical gross. (Summit declined to confirm or deny this information.)

Supporting cast members such as Kellan Lutz and Nikki Reed are getting $1.25 million a piece to return to the last two films, according to an individual with knowledge of their deals.

Summit anticipates that the first film in the two-part finale to the “Twilight Saga” will bring in $611 million in first-cycle revenue and $228 million in profits.

"First cycle" includes theatrical, paid and broadcast television, video on demand, merchandising, and disc sales through the 10th anniversary of the film’s release in theaters.

The capital raised last spring was used to finance the studio’s production slate, pay down debt, and to reward its original investors and key executives with a $200 million dividend.

Summit declined to comment for this article.

Whatever the fate of the studio beyond the "Twilight" series, Summit is poised to see a huge near-term windfall in a declining movie-going market from one of the few box-office events of the year.

Barring a plague of locusts, “Breaking Dawn -- Part 1” is on track to bank between $125 to $140 million this weekend domestically. It will also rake in big bucks in more than 50 foreign markets, including France, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.

Summit licenses the foreign rights to its film slate, meaning it will share “Breaking Dawn”s’ monster overseas profits -- but only after its foreign partners recoup all of their costs plus interest.

The prospectus filed in March explains that as part of Summit’s strategy, the studio has four long-term output agreements with E1, Nordisk, SND and Tele-Munchen, which contribute on average 31.5 percent of the production cost for each film on the studio’s slate.

Each partner pays a minimum guarantee for the film rights, and once those and other costs such as distribution fees are recouped, the remainder of the profits are divided.

The documents do not outline the split, but according to a prominent film financier, the industry standard is for the studio and the partner to divide profits evenly.

“Nobody gives away anything for free,” Hal Vogel of Vogel Capital Management and the author of “Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis,” told TheWrap. “The advantage of a pre-sale is that you don’t get whacked if the film is a dud, but when you have a hit it limits the upside.”

Until the box office closes Monday, it will not be clear if the studio is on track to meet Summit's bullish projections.

What is evident is that the still relatively economical blockbusters have gotten progressively more expensive as the series has continued.

“Breaking Dawn -- Part 1” cost the studio $127.5 million and “Part 2” will cost $136.2 million. In contrast, the first three films were budgeted at a reported $37 million for “Twilight,” $50 million for “New Moon,” and $68 million for “Eclipse.”

The studio plans to spend a total of $100 million on marketing the two final films in the series.

Summit says that after-tax rebates, “Breaking Dawn -- Part 1” cost $110 million.

Thanks to Summit’s foreign sales deals, the studio’s exposure on the films is minimal.

“Their exposure is pretty small relatively speaking, but it’s bigger by a factor of almost four from the first films,” Vogel told TheWrap. “The revenues are flat, and even though they will still make a nice profit, their profits are going down.”

November 27, 2011
A great addendum to this article, talking more about "the business"
Lions Gate Said to Be in Merger Talks With ‘Twilight’ Film Producer Summit
Read it here

Taking an Internet Show to TV

'Awkward Black Girl' Producer Shares Thoughts on the Web Vs. TV

By Tracy Oliver | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Nov 1, 2011

Last night, a few of my castmates -Issa Rae (J), Sujata Day (CeCe), Madison T. Shockley III (Fred), and Tristen Winger (Darius) came to my apartment to shoot a scene for the next "Awkward Black Girl" episode. Hours after we wrapped the shoot, we stayed in my living room passionately discussing the future of "ABG" til 3am. The topic of discussion: Should "ABG" stay on the Web or go to television?

Six months ago, that answer was emphatically television. I distinctly remember sitting in coffee shops with Issa, strategizing ways to reach potential producers, executives, and networks that may be a good fit for "ABG." We were even writing an extensive treatment for the series, visualizing how the characters and storylines could be adapted into a half-hour comedy.

I'll admit it. The prospect of "ABG" on television is enticing. The thought of millions of people sitting around their flat screens watching a weekly version of the show is pretty exciting. The thought of an African-American female lead with dark skin and a short fro starring in a mainstream comedy is downright revolutionary.

On television, "ABG" could be what "The Cosby Show" was back in the day -- a universal show breaking in several actors of color in front of the screen and writers and directors of color behind the scenes. In a perfect world, it could change the perceptions of African-American women at large and fill a void that's absent in mainstream media.

The only problem is, we don't live in a perfect world.

Television today often doesn't reflect the beauty in diversity, in front or behind the camera. The numbers of writers and directors of color working in television are dismal. The numbers of female writers and directors of color are even worse. According to a recent DGA study, white males directed 77% of all television episodes for the 2010-2011 season, while women of color directed just 1%.

When looking at these statistics, the reality of selling "ABG" to a network lends itself to many questions. Who will become the showrunner(s) and will they understand our vision? How many writers of color will be staffed? Will we able to maintain our current cast? How much creative control will we have over the content?

To answer these questions, Issa and I sat down with a television executive from a prominent network. In short, his response confirmed our worst fears. He felt that in order for "ABG" to become more mainstream, the entire cast would need to be replaced. His suggestion for the lead character, J, was a long haired, fair-skinned actress who looked more like a model from a rap music video than an awkward black girl.

Needless to say, the meeting was frustrating. But also very eye opening. This executive's thoughts on making "ABG" more mainstream stripped the show of what made it a hit in the first place -- its relatability. The truth is, he didn't get our show. He didn't get our vision. And worse, he didn't get our audience.

Our audience is the reason "ABG" is where it is today. They support our vision, and the Web allows us a unique opportunity to stay true to it. Though we haven't yet found a way to monetize the series as we would in television, the trade off is being able to have full creative license over the content, which is ultimately why we're excited to do what we're doing and why our fans are excited to watch.

Tracy Oliver is a writer/producer/actor whose work can be currently seen in the hit Web series, "The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl," also known as "ABG." "ABG" has been featured on several sites and publications, including Vibe magazine, Clutch magazine, CNN, The Root, Shadow & Act, AOL, and the Huffington Post. You can find "ABG" episodes and information here

UPDATE OCTOBER 2012

Shonda Rhimes Sells A Comedy From ‘Awkward Black Girl’ Creator Issa Rae to ABC

By Alyssa Rosenberg | ThinkProgress
Oct 1, 2012 at 4:21 pm

Since my readers introduced me to Issa Rae’s web series The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl, I’ve wished someone would give Rae, whose biting, original, low-budget show has earned her a well-deserved following, a deal and the resources to take her show national. Now, Shonda Rhimes, one of the few women and few African-Americans who can basically get a network to greenlight anything she wants, has found a way to do precisely that. Through her Shondaland production company, Rhimes has helped Rae sell a new series, I Hate LA Dudes, about the sole woman on an internet radio talk show, to ABC.

This is good, and illuminating, news for two reasons. First, it’s a sign that production companies and networks are finally starting to look to web-based content the way they should, as a source of genuinely new voices and of fresh storylines. In an ideal world, the internet and the distribution platforms native to it, Hulu in particular, should function as a kind of minor leagues for television, allowing artists to test ideas, improve their tool kits as low budgets require many of them to write, direct, edit and score as well as act, and build followings. Not all projects will succeed, but web shows, which are free from the pressures of network scheduling, can take time to develop audiences by word of mouth. If a show becomes a hit online without the benefit of a major publicity campaign, as Awkward Black Girl did, it’s fantastic proof of concept. That Rhimes and ABC recognized Rae’s talent and her audience is a testament to them, as well as to Rae’s work and vision.

The question will be how much leeway Rae has at ABC. Because it’s a network, it’s hard to imagine she’ll have as much freedom when it comes to content or to ratings as Louis C.K. has at FX or Lena Dunham has had at HBO. ABC picked up the show because the network thinks it can make money from Rae, not merely to pick up awards nominations or critical praise, and no matter how original Rae is, she’ll be getting network notes. But in a sense, there’s something invigorating about that proposition: ABC must think it’s possible to do well with a show from the perspective of a nerdy African-American woman whose prior selling point has been the social awkwardness of the character she portrayed, not precisely a demographic that gets heavy representation on network television.

And it’s also exciting to see Rhimes use her capital in Hollywood this way. Tyler Perry, the other person of color who can get almost any television or film project he wants into development, has never seemed particularly interested in using his shingle to help other writers and directors get projects moving (though he produced Lee Daniels’ Precious). And today he signed an exclusive development deal with the Oprah Winfrey Network, locking in profits but limiting his influence. There’s nothing wrong with Perry making that money. But it’s more exciting to see Rhimes single-handedly use her influence to make television a place that’s not just more diverse but more interesting, even in a way that goes beyond her own shows. I’ll be crossing my fingers for Rae to succeed not just because I can’t wait to watch whatever she creates, but because if she does well, that can only rebound to Shondaland’s credit, and if this is any indication, to our benefit as well.

Even though it isn't as cool as the animated version, the logo for Shonda Rhimes' production company Shondaland

Related Post
Let's Hear it for the Awkward Black Girls

Inside Industry info with Melee Entertainment

Starting around 31 minutes into the podcast, Bryan Turner founder and president of Melee Entertainment gives updates on some of his latest productions in the works, including The Under Shepherd, as well as specifics regarding his desire to seek new filmmakers and writers.

Melee is the company behind films like Friday, Next Day Air and You Got Served.

Listen to internet radio with Shadow And Act on Blog Talk Radio

Why Distribution is Important

Really the whole point of film festivals is to secure distribution deals for good movies. The three most prestigious film festivals are commonly regarded to be Cannes Film Festival, Toronto International Festival and Sundance Film Festival. Of course there is also Tribeca and South By Southwest (commonly spelled SXSW).

Distribution deals help get your film into theaters and other/further platforms: DVD, cable and network TV. Other rights can include soundtrack CDs, posters, games, toys and other merchandising.

A distributor already has a relationship and connections with all of these outlets. It’s the difference between trying (emphasis on trying) to get a meeting with ONE distributor like (Disney owned) Buena Vista and someone who can and WILL get a meeting with Buena Vista and SEVEN other companies. Buena Vista will probably not let you near the building. Sometimes a lot of films with big stars won’t secure distribution through the festival circuit.

Of course there are new trends like online distribution, but securing a distribution deal especially for a picture that costs several million dollars will offer a ROI (return on investment). There is also a new distribution model I talked about here where a network of theaters across the nation is committed to showing several black movies in a strictly grassroots (word of mouth) means.

The whole point of making a film is to get it seen by an audience. Distribution will further that goal.

To further crystallize I have this funny story.

I want to compare two African American films I saw last year. Since I have made it a practice NOT to diss a bad movie on my blog, for I know what hard work it is to get a movie made, I will call one movie "Bad Movie X" or BMX and the other which I do like…Night Catches Us or NCU.

A friend of mine calls me up and says I want you to check out this movie. I say what is this some vampire flick? (She likes vampires). She said no check this movie out. I say ok. What I saw was the most ridiculous crap I ever seen. It wasn’t satire like ‘Don’t Drink Your Juice in the Hood’ or whatever it’s called. It was supposed to be drama. I have to say that she is not into film like me, but even she could see what a bad film this was. I told her it looked like they had some money to shoot this though. It looked like at least $1 million to me. Surprisingly we BOTH wanted to see this movie. We thought maybe it’s better than it looks.

I checked and BMX was playing in like seven theaters in Maryland. We saw it at a theater with the other two couples there (six people total audience) and…our instincts weren’t wrong. BOY was it bad. About halfway through I turned to her and said “Is this supposed to be a comedy?” The acting, story…just bad.

After I see a great movie I like to read all about it (Wikipedia/IMDb etc.) and weirdly I had the same desire of research for this movie. I subsequently found out that:

• BMX had a Domestic Total Gross of $2,595,644 with a Production Budget of $1.6 million.
• Night Catches Us had a Domestic Total Gross of $76,185 with a N/A Production Budget.

I also found out that BMX was distributed by Bad Movie Releasing (not the real name) who has distributed about 2 films a year since 2006 according to my research.

I think it’s a shame that a good movie like Night Catches Us can’t get distributed in theaters in Maryland and this one could. NCU was picked up by Magnolia Pictures and it was THEIR choice to distribute it on OnDemand and iTunes which they probably had NO problem doing so. Magnolia will help NCU in the long run get into MORE media outlets. Bad Movie Releasing will get their movie out there, but not like Magnolia.

Say Bad Movie Releasing will get 10 DVDs to Netflix while Magnolia will get 50 DVDs to Netflix. Something like ‘Transformers 2’ will get like 150-200, but that’s the environment.

Personally I like seeing bad movies as much as I like seeing good ones. Yes it wastes my time, but you have to see the bad to know what NOT to do.

You can read what I had to say about Night Catches Us (and another great film) here


Related posts-
The NEW Distribution Model

Related link-
A more technical breakdown of film distribution can be found at
How Movie Distribution Works