Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Thursday, February 18, 2010

FIRST-EVER SURVEY OF SPECIALTY FILMS AND FINANCING COMPLETE


Though this information "feels" accurate, I have to note that I haven't personally double checked its data or methodology. Example, industry reports usually only include data from the largest agencies and management companies because its very difficult to capture data from the small ones... like us, and all those small companies in aggregate are meaningful. Regardless, the important takeaways concerning trends are probably fairly accurate, and I applaud Jeremy's work as it helps demystify the industry, which allows investors to feel more confident and therefore fund films.

Jeremy Juuso Consulting has completed the first year of its ongoing survey of the U.S. specialty film market and its financing traits.

Defined as any film released into 1,000 U.S. movie theaters or fewer on opening weekend, specialty films are comprised primarily of independent films with no studio ties.

Summary statistics for the 2009 U.S. specialty market are available to the public in “The A.K.A. Report” at www.jeremyjuuso.com/film.htm .

Individual statistics on over 400 films are also available to the public at the same web address.

Findings about the 2009 U.S. specialty market include the following:

OVERALL:
----- 403 films were released, excluding reissues and the Academy-nominated short films compilation.

FINANCING:
----- 43 involved studio financing.

----- 38% were private equity financed (i.e., private equity comprised more than 70% of the budget).

----- 18% were distributor financed (i.e., at least one distributor or its parent company supplied more than 30% of the budget).

----- 12% were private equity driven (i.e., private equity comprised 30%-60% of the budget).

----- 10% were European government supported as part of an international coproduction.

----- No overlap exists among the previous four categories.

STARS AND BOX OFFICE:
----- 137 films (34%) had at least one star, where a star is an actor who previously was a lead in at least one feature grossing $50 million or more domestically.

----- The average budget for star films released during Q1-Q3 2009 was estimated at $7.9 million (excluding P&A), with an average box office of $1.8 million for these same films.

----- The average budget for non-star films released during Q1-Q3 was estimated at $3.6 million (excluding P&A), with an average box office of $1.0 million for these same films.

----- Less than 15% of specialty films released in Q1-Q3 generated 90% of box office revenues for specialty films released in Q1-Q3.

----- Late Q4 releases are still accruing significant box office receipts.

FESTIVALS:
----- 344 films (85%) debuted at a film festival prior to U.S. theatrical release.

----- The top debuted-at festivals were Sundance (64 films), Toronto (43), Cannes (37), Berlin (21), Tribeca (19), Venice (17), SXSW (13), Slamdance (7), and Telluride (6).

----- 95 other film festivals had less than 6 films represented.

PRODUCER’S REPS:
----- 113 specialty films (28%) had hired producer’s reps to attain and/or negotiate their domestic distribution agreements.

----- The producer’s reps did not represent the films in the majority of foreign markets, if any.

----- Among the films released, CAA had been hired as a producer’s rep on 21 films, Cinetic Media on 20, Submarine Entertainment on 17, William Morris on 14, Endeavor on 11, and ICM on 8.

Further details on distributors, self-distribution, foreign sales agents, genres and languages, and day-and-date VOD can be found in “The A.K.A. Report” at www.jeremyjuuso.com/film.htm .

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

What is a "Disney" movie?


Disney Studios drama might alter the industry

By Claudia Eller and Dawn Chmielewski


If you thought President Obama moved quickly, that's nothing compared with the first 50 days of the Ross administration.

In less than eight weeks, Rich Ross has swiftly stamped his imprimatur on Walt Disney Studios. The novice movie chairman and his boss, Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger, want to create a new business model for Hollywood to address the sweeping changes that are roiling the entertainment industry, including slumping DVD sales and the growing role the Internet plays in movie marketing.

Seeking to recast the studio for the digital era, Ross and Iger have set in motion a plan to dramatically challenge entrenched practices, potentially pitting Disney against theater owners, retailers and other business partners. The gambit, if it works, could be emulated by other studios.

If it backfires, it could undermine what has historically been the creative heart of Disney.

In meetings with producers, filmmakers and agents, Ross attacked the industry custom of spending $40 million on a TV advertising blitz two weeks before a film's opening, rather than enlisting more targeted campaigns that harness social networks and the broader Web. And he's raised again the touchy subject advanced by Iger that consumers are demanding that movies become available for home viewing sooner after release in theaters than has traditionally been the case.

Hollywood might finally be absorbing the message.

"Any of us that are sitting around protecting old business models unfortunately are destined to have a hard time succeeding in the coming years"
,
said Sam Gores, chairman of talent agency Paradigm. "We have to maximize our existing models and, more importantly, build new ones."

It's too soon to know whether Ross, a seasoned TV executive, can pull off his ambitious plan as well as successfully transition to the movie side of the business -- the track record in Hollywood is mixed. Ross declined to be interviewed.

In September, Iger stunned the industry when he ousted Disney's movie Chairman Dick Cook, a 38-year veteran who began as a Monorail operator at Disneyland. By installing Ross, who built the Disney Channel into a global juggernaut, Iger gains more control over a key division he believed had long operated too independently.

Since Ross took over in early October, he has dismissed several top executives and begun restructuring operations. In the process, some say, the hyperkinetic executive displays flashes of brusqueness and impatience. The upheaval has created anxiety for employees and even at times disrupted business dealings. An important meeting with director Tim Burton and producer Joe Roth, who once ran Disney's studio, to discuss marketing plans for the upcoming release of their film "Alice in Wonderland," for example, was abruptly canceled pending an executive shake-up, leaving the filmmakers flummoxed.

Since then, Disney watchers have needed a score card to track all the comings and goings.

Last month, Ross flew to New York to fire Daniel Battsek, the head of Disney's struggling specialty movie label, who, despite the unit's recent poor track record, was caught off guard. A week later, he pushed out another company veteran, Mark Zoradi, who was president of Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, in a prelude to an overhaul of the marketing and distribution operations that he oversaw. Ross next let go marketing President Jim Gallagher and elevated former home video chief Bob Chapek to an expanded role that encompasses all aspects of film distribution from movie theaters to home and digital delivery, breaking with the conventional role of solely booking movies into theaters.

In the coming weeks, Ross plans to hire a new marketing chief -- Disney has retained an executive search firm to find candidates outside and inside the movie business -- who will have an equally broad mandate to handle the promotion of films from multiplexes to living rooms.

Beyond organizational changes, Ross' vision for the types of movies that will ultimately define Disney is beginning to emerge. His main focus will be developing family-friendly movies under the Disney label. Iger's overarching strategy is to amass a stable of recognizable entertainment brands -- Pixar Animation Studios and the pending acquisition of Marvel Entertainment Inc. -- and exploit the films across its TV, theme parks, consumer products and game divisions.

"It's brand over everything else,"
said Roth, referring to movies that come with built-in, pre-sold concepts, such as sequels. It's a strategy, he notes, that although designed to reduce risk is not without a downside.
"What may get lost in the shuffle are non-branded original ideas that have no pre-awareness."


One of the challenges Ross faces is how to navigate the release dates for Disney's event movies, including those from high-powered producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Bob Zemeckis. "It's very difficult because there are only X-number of really key release dates and a lot of filmmakers who make big movies," said Bruckheimer, responsible for Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise.

Ross, to a great degree, is doing what every new studio chief does: comb through the list of existing projects to decide those that live and those that die. Last week, he torpedoed director McG's planned $150-million production of "Captain Nemo: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," which had been envisioned as a new franchise.

One of the things he's told agents is that he's looking to make more movies that appeal to women. In meetings, Ross cited the studio's upcoming release "Old Dogs," a comedy starring Robin Williams and John Travolta, as a missed opportunity to further develop the female characters that would widen the movie's appeal.

"He seems to be open to broadening what it means to be a Disney movie," said United Talent Agency partner Jeremy Zimmer, "and to have more diversity and stronger execution of movies."

The new direction shouldn't come as a surprise: The studio has suffered two consecutive quarters of operating losses, and Iger this year took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the movie choices. Trying to cultivate relationships with talent that has close ties to Disney, Ross has been making the rounds in Hollywood.

Shortly after he took over, he went to DreamWorks' headquarters to meet with Steven Spielberg and his partner, Stacey Snider, who were enticed into a distribution deal by Cook and were distraught over his ouster. Snider said that Ross assured them that DreamWorks was an "important partner" and "was not going to let any balls fall." She and Spielberg in turn said to Ross, "We were sad that Dick was no longer there but that we're completely on board with him."

Ross also paid a visit to Bruckheimer at his Santa Monica office to see 40 minutes of his action film "Sorcerer's Apprentice," and attended a preview of his video game-inspired "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" -- both big upcoming summer releases for Disney. "He's off to a fast start," said Bruckheimer, referring to his industry networking and studio realignment. Equally important, he said, is that Ross "keep up the morale, which is important when you've lost a lot of leaders." A few weeks ago, Ross and Iger visited director Burton and Roth, who showed them a 10-minute 3-D clip of "Alice in Wonderland."Ross, who at Disney Channel was known for nurturing talent, apparently hit it off with the eccentric Burton."Rich was very good with Tim, really enthusiastic," Roth said

Now, Ross will have to work his magic on the studio's biggest star, Johnny Depp, who plays the Mad Hatter in "Alice in Wonderland" and Jack Sparrow in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series. Depp was shaken over the abrupt dismissal of Cook and said at the time that the former studio chief embodied the quality he valued most.

"You generally don't meet people at the studios you trust," Depp said.

claudia.eller@latimes

dawn.chmielewski@

latimes.com

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Angel Group Likes Lights, Camera And Action Of Indie Films


From the Wall St. Journal, 10/12/2009

As an experienced tech entrepreneur and angel investor, Rizwan Virk was happy to see a solid return on one of his recent investments after just one year.


But the exit didn’t come from a software start-up or social media company finding a corporate acquirer. Instead, Virk’s quick payoff came from an independent film.

Virk is a member of FilmAngels, a Silicon Valley group whose members back film productions – mostly small, independent projects. Founded in 2005, Film Angels is made up mostly of tech executives and investors who apply their business and venture capital experience to the filmmaking world.

FilmAngels meets regularly, seeing about five pitches per month. Members are free to invest in whichever projects they choose. The group pre-screens the films, but does not endorse any particular films. About 12 films have been funded through the group, which invites hundreds of accredited investors to its events and has a smaller number of paid members, said Thomas Trenker, managing director at FilmAngels.

For many members of Film Angels, the about-face from their usual areas of investing is what makes the space appealing.

“A lot of investors I see FilmAngels resonate for are already successful investors and very heavily weighted in other asset classes such as technology or software,” said Saad Khan, a FilmAngels member and partner at CMEA Capital. “This is a way to diversify their whole asset class in new areas.”

Investing in technology is Virk’s specialty, having invested in Offerpal Media Inc., a large player in online gaming monetization, and Tapjoy, a mobile game developer. He also was previously chief executive of CambridgeDocs, which was acquired by EMC Document Sciences in 2007.

One film he invested in, “Turquoise Rose” - a coming-of-age story about a Navajo girl from suburban Phoenix who is forced to spend a summer on a Native American reservation - made its money back in under a year, despite the film not having big Hollywood distribution. The filmmakers and Virk self-distributed the film, focusing on the West and Southwest regions, where there are larger Native American populations and strong interest in the film’s topics.

Virk said he made 20% in profit after one year investing in the film, though he declined to say how much he invested. Many of the angels in the group invest in the “low six figures” per film, Trenker said. While such returns are not comparable to VC blockbuster deals, they have the virtue of a much quicker turnaround than the standard VC investment.

The VC model does play a role in the film financing. There are a range of ways that films are financed and structured, particularly for independent films. But many of these films don’t usually include VC-style concepts like classes of stock, valuation or liquidation preferences, Khan said, which give investors different rights based on when and how they invest.

FilmAngels investors seek to include more standardized concepts so that, for example, investors receive protections or preferences for investing at an earlier stage.

“Deals I’ve been in, you get 115% or 120% back, then profits are spread based on some ratio between producers and investors,” Virk said. “It’s similar to a 1.2x liquidation preference.”

At a recent FilmAngels event in San Francisco, director Dan Frisch screened his film, “The Rainbow Tribe,” which has yet to be released. Frisch’s case - he is seeking funding for a follow-up to “The Rainbow Tribe” - is somewhat rare for FilmAngels because, unlike most of those who pitch the group, he is not a neophyte filmmaker, having directed films such as “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and films in the “Hostel” franchise.

But even though Frisch is an established filmmaker, he said he came to FilmAngels because there are surprisingly few groups in the industry where savvy investors are interested in being intimately involved in film projects. “I don’t want an arms’ length investor,” Frisch said.

Virk said a healthy rapport between filmmaker and investor is essential for the model to work. “I look for people who are entrepreneurial,” he said of the investments he considers. “They understand that this is a business and they need to make money back for investors.”

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

THE WRITER'S COUCH


OK, so a development exec read your script and liked it. Maybe they want to buy it, but odds are they don’t. That’s no reflection on you, that’s just the percentages. Most of the time when you have a meeting it will not be because you’re making a sale, but because someone liked your work, however it wasn’t the right fit for them or missed the mark a bit. Now they want to know if you might have something stuffed in a drawer, or that you're working on that could be cool. Take it from me, yes I was once a naïve writer too, don’t go in there thinking because you had one hot script that now your'e in a position to get a paid assignment. Odds are 9/10 you’re not. And remember, an unpaid assignment is just working for free, they are not the same.

So you walk into the office and inevitably there is “the writers couch.” Most offices are too small for a real couch, so it’s almost always a loveseat. If you write with a partner get used to sitting really close to them- use deodorant.


The meeting will start out with 5-10 minutes of small talk followed by the D-person asking something to the effect of “So what are you working on.” Which really means “please tell me you're working on some really cool stuff that we can set up and turn into amazing and profitable movies so I can get a promotion or move to a better production company than this shi@#y place.”
This is where your preparation is going to come in, because you’re going to have:

1) 3 projects you can pitch them. No more than 5-10 minutes on each and you can do this by heart. You don’t have to pull out a piece of paper. And while you're pitching, observe whether they are into it or not. (I’ll write more on the theory of the “Execudot” another time) If not, move to the next one. We’ve got a client who can literally go in with 10 things. He pitches the hook, sees if they bite, if yes, gives them the rest and, if no, moves to the next one. It’s beautiful. And because he’s not married to any ONE project, the development exec. doesn’t feel any pressure to soft-pedal his or her response, and often enjoys the process more.


2) The knowledge of what this company is producing and has produced in the past.

3) A generally pleasant personality. Because they're also getting to know you and deciding whether, or not, they may want to work with you in the future. Nobody wants to work long hours with Debbie Downer, or some totally introverted freak. Everybody wants to work with nice, fun talented people. So be that guy. This, and pitching well, are what’s referred to being “Good in a room.” It's good to be "Good in a room," trust me.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

IT'S TOUGH OUT THERE






I include this portion of David Hayes article in today's Variety to emphasize the difficult environment indy film financiers and distributors find themselves in.
Last year's Cinderella Coach (Hamlet 2) went for $10 million. However it promptly turned back into a pumpkin over the summer when it only grossed $5M. When you consider the marketing that went into the film's wide release, plus the $10M to buy it and the theater owners take, that's a loss of around $20 million, Ouch! Folks, that's real money, not the Monopoly stuff. If you're the type of person who slams the studios for being uncreative or short sighted, remember this financial loss before doing it again. Remember this is "Show Business," not "Show Art." And please think about the financiers' concerns when choosing what to write or which of your scripts to send to an agent, manager or producer. It's tough out there.

Industry dressing down for Sundance

Economy brings a more subdued festival

Sundance, the first major fest to take place in the midst of the brutal economic downturn, is likely to be a more subdued affair.

There will still be the usual distribs scouting pics and sellers offering a full range of fare, but the overall noise level at the fest, running Jan. 15-25, is expected to be turned down a bit.

Organizers are marking the fest's 25th anniversary with special "storytelling"-themed events and Web content. Steven Soderbergh will sit on a panel seeking to answer the question "What next?"

That question has haunted the indie and specialty arenas of late. Despite the fall emergence of breakouts like "Slumdog Millionaire," "Milk" and "Doubt" at the mini-majors, the hangover from 2008 has lingered as vets absorb the disappearance of Warner Independent and Picturehouse and a big pullback by Paramount Vantage just three years after its euphoric "Hustle and Flow" Sundance moment. Add the breakdown of ThinkFilm, Bob Yari's release arm and other pure indies and the ground has shifted significantly underfoot.

Funding for pics is available, but the capital-intensive distribution and marketing sectors have been in dire straits of late.

"It just feels a lot tougher this year because so much is changing," said Bob Berney, who headed Picturehouse before it was unplugged last year by Time Warner. "Even so, I'm looking forward to Sundance just for the chance to see movies because it's often been a place of renewal."

The 10-day fest will see an array of preems, some for pics that are already spoken for, some not. For many trekking to the Wasatch Mountains, memories of last year's cross-currents remain fresh -- success stories like "Frozen River" and "Man on Wire" mixed with misfires like "What Just Happened?" and "Hamlet 2." Focus bought the latter for a record $10 million in an all-night bidding war, only to see it gross barely half that in wide summer release........

(photo from last year's Sundance)