From indieWIRE.com: The following are Michael Lynne’s opening remarks from Friday’s Independent Film Summit, presented by MoMA & indieWIRE (with Zipline Entertainment).
As someone who grew up in the independent film world and helped shepherd a company from “Reefer Madness” to “Lord of the Rings,” it is a pleasure to be here today.
I think it is ironic that I have been asked to kick-off this Independent Film Summit, having been a principal in perhaps the most successful independent film company in history – which has nevertheless become one of the biggest victims of the consolidation of film production and distribution that has so negatively affected the independent film universe. Fortunately, we are living to fight another day in our new production company, Unique Features.
There are however, several very telling points which can be made in this regard:
1 – If you are independent and value the freedom which that brings – stay independent. There is no free lunch – if you are owned by a major studio, you will ultimately be governed by major studio guidelines and major studio decision-making. It is kind of a Faustian bargain. When New Line agreed to be acquired by Turner Broadcasting, we had access to wherewithal for production and distribution substantially beyond what was available to us as a free standing public company. The ambitions which we had for New Line could be accelerated by years. But there was a catch – as Ted Turner said to us about six months after the merger when we referred to him as our partner – “Yes, guys, we are partners in a way and we are definitely friends – but you did sell your company to me – let’s just keep that in mind as we go forward.”
2 – Independent filmmaking emerged in a significant way in the early ‘80s with the arrival of New Line, Miramax, Cannon, New World, Tri-Star and others. Each of those companies had a game plan and a strategy for the space they would occupy in the industry landscape. It was an earlier time of irrational exuberance and lots of capital and very expensive debt was available. The anticipation that we were on the brink of a new generation of film companies, was palpable. Obviously, some of those companies have left a significant film legacy, but the truth is, and this is very telling, none of them today, if they exist at all, exist in the same ownership configuration in which they existed then. And none is truly independent now.
3 – Just as there was an opportunity then for independent, maverick organizations to make films for underserved audiences and to create new paradigms, the same opportunity will undoubtedly come out of the very difficult times for independent filmmaking today as fresh, out-of-the-box thinking on content and delivery, from passionate and talented filmmakers and producers, finds its way through the ambient noise of the establishment to a public hungry for the new. It may be one of us in this room – or it may be a kid with a dream, a digital camera and a fire in his or her belly.
4 – We should be prepared to rethink all of the commonly accepted practices and pre-conceptions about film production and film distribution. There is and will be less funding available for the production of independent films and for the release of those films. (In fact, there will be less funding available for the production and distribution of films in general.) We will see the conventional timing and formats for film viewing re-invented to a meaningful degree. Where films are seen, when they are seen, who pays for them to be seen, are all going to change dramatically in the next 5 to 10 years. Some of those changes will make the process easier and some will make it much harder.
5 – Tough economic times may favor movie-going in theaters, but it won’t solve the shrinking DVD sector and, on balance, it has, and will probably continue to, encourage the production of safer product for a more mainstream audience looking for escape from their stressful private situations. Obviously, that has never been the basic mission of independent filmmaking. The real challenge is to work toward creating films that are original, thoughtful, even challenging, but which nevertheless can capture the imagination of audiences who will always be responsive to something new and unexpected and yes, to films that are entertaining, in the broadest sense of that word.
6 – As an industry we’ve tried to preserve the idea of windows of distribution, ordering the availability of our product by distribution channel, starting in about every instance with the theatrical distribution window. And I don’t know a filmmaker who doesn’t want his film seen in a theatre on a big screen with beautiful sound. But we should be prepared for the possibility – not clear how far off – that there will be 50 or 60 million flat-screen HDTV’s capable of receiving digital downloads around the world. And someone will have the quintessential tent pole which can be ordered for $40 a household before theatrical release. The stakes are high – maybe 2 or 3 billion dollars on one night high. Of course theatrical exhibitors will have something to say about that. But it will also be an opportunity for more niche product which can be targeted to a specific segment of that digitally connected audience, on an incredibly efficient and lucrative basis. For independent films, we are talking about a version of the long tail, which one day may be a real lifesaver for these special films with discreet audiences who can then be identified and addressed directly.
7 – All in all, there is a lot to consider. We are in a very interesting moment in time. It is a time of complicated issues but of enormous potential opportunity. Of course, everyone knows the famous William Goldman quote about our industry: “Nobody knows anything.” It is cautionary, humbling and probably entirely true. And we should all keep that in mind as we continue our conversation today. The fact is, there are no real experts on the future of our business or any business – although I think I’ve found one expert. He’s a true visionary who understood totally the risk of being too certain about what lies in store for us. So in addition to William Goldman’s sage advice, let’s keep in mind what Yogi Berra said (which applies very much to our topic today): “The future ain’t what it used to be.”
Michael Lynne, a co-founder of New Line with Robert Shaye, with whom he also co-founded the new production company, Unique Features.
Read the rest of the article at the link below:
via Michael Lynne at The Indie Summit: ‘Stay independent’ – indieWIRE.
2 – Independent filmmaking emerged in a significant way in the early ‘80s with the arrival of New Line, Miramax, Cannon, New World, Tri-Star and others. Each of those companies had a game plan and a strategy for the space they would occupy in the industry landscape. It was an earlier time of irrational exuberance and lots of capital and very expensive debt was available. The anticipation that we were on the brink of a new generation of film companies, was palpable. Obviously, some of those companies have left a significant film legacy, but the truth is, and this is very telling, none of them today, if they exist at all, exist in the same ownership configuration in which they existed then. And none is truly independent now.
|
|
3 – Just as there was an opportunity then for independent, maverick organizations to make films for underserved audiences and to create new paradigms, the same opportunity will undoubtedly come out of the very difficult times for independent filmmaking today as fresh, out-of-the-box thinking on content and delivery, from passionate and talented filmmakers and producers, finds its way through the ambient noise of the establishment to a public hungry for the new. It may be one of us in this room – or it may be a kid with a dream, a digital camera and a fire in his or her belly.
4 – We should be prepared to rethink all of the commonly accepted practices and pre-conceptions about film production and film distribution. There is and will be less funding available for the production of independent films and for the release of those films. (In fact, there will be less funding available for the production and distribution of films in general.) We will see the conventional timing and formats for film viewing re-invented to a meaningful degree. Where films are seen, when they are seen, who pays for them to be seen, are all going to change dramatically in the next 5 to 10 years. Some of those changes will make the process easier and some will make it much harder. 5 – Tough economic times may favor movie-going in theaters, but it won’t solve the shrinking DVD sector and, on balance, it has, and will probably continue to, encourage the production of safer product for a more mainstream audience looking for escape from their stressful private situations. Obviously, that has never been the basic mission of independent filmmaking. The real challenge is to work toward creating films that are original, thoughtful, even challenging, but which nevertheless can capture the imagination of audiences who will always be responsive to something new and unexpected and yes, to films that are entertaining, in the broadest sense of that word. 6 – As an industry we’ve tried to preserve the idea of windows of distribution, ordering the availability of our product by distribution channel, starting in about every instance with the theatrical distribution window. And I don’t know a filmmaker who doesn’t want his film seen in a theatre on a big screen with beautiful sound. But we should be prepared for the possibility – not clear how far off – that there will be 50 or 60 million flat-screen HDTV’s capable of receiving digital downloads around the world. And someone will have the quintessential tent pole which can be ordered for $40 a household before theatrical release. The stakes are high – maybe 2 or 3 billion dollars on one night high. Of course theatrical exhibitors will have something to say about that. But it will also be an opportunity for more niche product which can be targeted to a specific segment of that digitally connected audience, on an incredibly efficient and lucrative basis. For independent films, we are talking about a version of the long tail, which one day may be a real lifesaver for these special films with discreet audiences who can then be identified and addressed directly. 7 – All in all, there is a lot to consider. We are in a very interesting moment in time. It is a time of complicated issues but of enormous potential opportunity. Of course, everyone knows the famous William Goldman quote about our industry: “Nobody knows anything.” It is cautionary, humbling and probably entirely true. And we should all keep that in mind as we continue our conversation today. The fact is, there are no real experts on the future of our business or any business – although I think I’ve found one expert. He’s a true visionary who understood totally the risk of being too certain about what lies in store for us. So in addition to William Goldman’s sage advice, let’s keep in mind what Yogi Berra said (which applies very much to our topic today): “The future ain’t what it used to be.” Michael Lynne, a co-founder of New Line with Robert Shaye, with whom he also co-founded the new production company, Unique Features. |
Very insightful opening remarks by Michael Lynne.
Though he states out the problem before independent film makers, his view’s are very futuristic and US focused (or rather focuses on the audience in the developed world), considering the low penetration of high speed network, and a prohibitive or non-existent PPV business model in major parts of the world.
It doesn’t solve the problem of distribution for the current crop of independent film makers, since distribution is still very much controlled by big businesses. For true independence to usher in, an independent distribution model has to be developed.
Also, other then their home audience, the current crop of independent film makers fail to nurture audiences in small foreign territories, hence failing to monetize their assets in these small pockets of audiences, which lie in neglect.
I believe a revenue sharing model is the best way to go forward for such territories, where a certain percentage of revenue is committed by the distributor. This permits a larger collection of independent films to be taken abroad, to a wider audience in smaller territories, which otherwise is not possible in the old distribution model owing to the limited and evolving size of the small offshore territory. We believe this is a true hybrid independent distribution model, and gives all stakeholders involved a greater freedom and opportunity to monetize their assets.
This model has been thought of as i hail from India, which is a very small, young and evolving market for foreign language films; and hence is neglected. As such only a handful of Oscar or Cannes certified (they are like vetting monopolies) foreign language films, and big studios produced Hollywood production make it to my country.
I have been trying to establish this idea into a business model in my country, so that a larger number of foreign language films can be bought to the audience of my country. But it still needs a wider acceptance from the independent film maker community.
Shaishav Todi
Good opening comments by Michael Lynne.
There will be many things that will happen over the coming years, affecting & shifting the way movies are distributed. One idea that has been proposed by some industry peeps, including Mr. Lynne, is the idea of a $40 PPV release in people’s homes. This is a good out-of-the-box idea, and yes, one that exhibitors will resist… but perhaps only initially. Of course, it will have to be a movie that has star power OR buzz, that enough people will be willing to gather a bunch of friends and split the cost for the PPV. Or some industrious filmmakers, willing to harness social networking to create thousands of house parties for the PPV screenings.
Certainly this is going on now, with Brave New Theatres, although not on that scale and not with the participation and delivery via a PPV/VOD provider.
This can also help to increase the perceived value of such a movie—if the PPV goes well at that price—and likely drive numbers of people into theatres, should there be a short PPV window followed by a theatrical release.
This could be a real boon to those filmmakers, providing they have a real piece of the revenue stream and not be “bought out” as they usually are (i.e., the usually small advance from the major theatrical distribs is usually all they ever see).
This is, in a nutshell, THE problem for most filmmakers: Getting their fair share of the revenue pie.
I believe it is time in this country, that a conversation begin to take place, where we have an ASCAP or BMI like structure for movies streamed on the net. It is not too late to do this. That all internet sites that acquire movies for streaming/downloading must remit a percentage of monies to an organization, that then oversees these royalties going directly to the filmmakers. Without this, there will be (or continue to be) thousands of filmmakers whose movies are streamed and viewed but see little or no money. Far too many companies—distributors and aggregators—are taking way too high of a percentage for internet rights from filmmakers. And they’re getting it because so many filmmakers are desperate.
To hear about filmmakers whose movie was streamed and viewed over 100,000 times on Hulu, but only saw $2,000 in ad revenue is utterly ridiculous. There is no business model in that—certainly not for the filmmaker. That’s .02 per view. This may be okay for a song, but not a 2 hour movie.
Jerome Courshon
“The Secrets to Distribution”
http://www.Distribution.LA
Michael Lynne at The Indie Summit: ‘Stay independent’ http://ff.im/-b9qdM
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Very insightful opening remarks by Michael Lynne.
Though he states out the problem before independent film makers, his view’s are very futuristic and US focused (or rather focuses on the audience in the developed world), considering the low penetration of high speed network, and a prohibitive or non-existent PPV business model in major parts of the world.
It doesn’t solve the problem of distribution for the current crop of independent film makers, since distribution is still very much controlled by big businesses. For true independence to usher in, an independent distribution model has to be developed.
Also, other then their home audience, the current crop of independent film makers fail to nurture audiences in small foreign territories, hence failing to monetize their assets in these small pockets of audiences, which lie in neglect.
I believe a revenue sharing model is the best way to go forward for such territories, where a certain percentage of revenue is committed by the distributor. This permits a larger collection of independent films to be taken abroad, to a wider audience in smaller territories, which otherwise is not possible in the old distribution model owing to the limited and evolving size of the small offshore territory. We believe this is a true hybrid independent distribution model, and gives all stakeholders involved a greater freedom and opportunity to monetize their assets.
This model has been thought of as i hail from India, which is a very small, young and evolving market for foreign language films; and hence is neglected. As such only a handful of Oscar or Cannes certified (they are like vetting monopolies) foreign language films, and big studios produced Hollywood production make it to my country.
I have been trying to establish this idea into a business model in my country, so that a larger number of foreign language films can be bought to the audience of my country. But it still needs a wider acceptance from the independent film maker community.
Shaishav Todi
Good opening comments by Michael Lynne.
There will be many things that will happen over the coming years, affecting & shifting the way movies are distributed. One idea that has been proposed by some industry peeps, including Mr. Lynne, is the idea of a $40 PPV release in people’s homes. This is a good out-of-the-box idea, and yes, one that exhibitors will resist… but perhaps only initially. Of course, it will have to be a movie that has star power OR buzz, that enough people will be willing to gather a bunch of friends and split the cost for the PPV. Or some industrious filmmakers, willing to harness social networking to create thousands of house parties for the PPV screenings.
Certainly this is going on now, with Brave New Theatres, although not on that scale and not with the participation and delivery via a PPV/VOD provider.
This can also help to increase the perceived value of such a movie—if the PPV goes well at that price—and likely drive numbers of people into theatres, should there be a short PPV window followed by a theatrical release.
This could be a real boon to those filmmakers, providing they have a real piece of the revenue stream and not be “bought out” as they usually are (i.e., the usually small advance from the major theatrical distribs is usually all they ever see).
This is, in a nutshell, THE problem for most filmmakers: Getting their fair share of the revenue pie.
I believe it is time in this country, that a conversation begin to take place, where we have an ASCAP or BMI like structure for movies streamed on the net. It is not too late to do this. That all internet sites that acquire movies for streaming/downloading must remit a percentage of monies to an organization, that then oversees these royalties going directly to the filmmakers. Without this, there will be (or continue to be) thousands of filmmakers whose movies are streamed and viewed but see little or no money. Far too many companies—distributors and aggregators—are taking way too high of a percentage for internet rights from filmmakers. And they’re getting it because so many filmmakers are desperate.
To hear about filmmakers whose movie was streamed and viewed over 100,000 times on Hulu, but only saw $2,000 in ad revenue is utterly ridiculous. There is no business model in that—certainly not for the filmmaker. That’s .02 per view. This may be okay for a song, but not a 2 hour movie.
Jerome Courshon
“The Secrets to Distribution”
http://www.Distribution.LA