In reading Peter’s postings, I don’t think there is a “there” there. While these ideas can work for an occasional film, they don’t work for most independent film.

It doesn’t solve the problem that are inherent in most of the independent docs and fiction features. They are not commercial. People don’t want to see most of them. They have no hooks to use in marketing them. It’s not old v new but rather commercial v non-commercial v marginally commercial.

As soon as it’s evident the work will sell, people will buy it, if the filmmaker has the resources, or better yet, can get the resources then the film can go out. “Man on a Wire” v “Taxi to the Dark Side” or any number of other difficult to sell Oscar winning/Sundance Award winners.
Based on our experience it takes at least a half million dollars to launch even a small film–from making the 35mm prints and digital versions, setting up press screenings in NY and LA, doing the print campaign, the one sheet, etc.

Wonderful but difficult to sell films with a half-million dollars to launch them need a theatrical gross of $1.5 mil. or more just to break even.

“Man on a Wire” is headed for a multi-million dollar gross thanks to the excellent work of Magnolia. Even if Think could pour more funding into “Taxi” would it have done better? How much money can one make selling several hundred thousand DVDs even if they are sold off the filmmaker’s site?

Peter’s models don’t address the changes in how media is being used and how the mostly marginal works that are produced can make a decent (or any) return.

We have far to many works chasing the gold rings, the Sundance annual statistics of growing entries shows the continued disconnect between the real market and the “let’s make a film” indie film community. It’s such a shame that so many works are getting lost and so many funders are never going to be whole.

Mitchell Block
http://www.directcinema.com