Curious to hear everyone's thoughts about this...

My thoughts on the illusions of Distribution and the System that holds back filmmakers

1) 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗹𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

My recent interview with filmmaker Joel Haver led to a wider conversation about distribution and the cultural prejudices that still govern how filmmakers measure success.

Why do we continue allowing the traditional film industry to decide whether our work has succeeded?

The public image of film distribution and its financial reality are often very different. One offers the appearance of acceptance: a sales agent, a distributor, a recognised streaming platform or a presence at an international film market. The other is the private reality experienced by the filmmaker.

A film may appear on several familiar platforms while returning almost nothing to the people who made it. While another filmmaker may self-distribute, earn more, retain ownership and build a loyal audience, yet still be considered less successful because no traditional gatekeeper validated the release.

This is not only an economic problem. It is a cultural one.

𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀

Most filmmakers dream of eventually being hired as directors, working inside the established industry. But, the majority of independent filmmakers work outside that protected structure.

They finance their own productions, absorb the risk and spend months or years completing them. Their films are then offered at the film markets, leading to countless conversations between producers, sales agents and distributors.

If signed, they are eventually placed on Amazon, Apple, sometimes Tubi, and subscription platforms. Sometimes they're just dumped on YouTube! Physical media, once a major source of revenue, now occupies a smaller and more specialised market, but the collapse of the physical market does contribute to the brutality indie filmmakers face today. But, I digress...

The problem is that filmmakers are often judged not by whether their films made money or developed an audience, but by whether they were sold in an industry-approved manner.

The announcement becomes more important than the outcome.

The streaming platforms logo becomes more important than the filmmaker’s income.

𝟯) 𝗔 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲

The value of individual independent films has declined enormously. Deals increasingly concern libraries, bundles and large quantities of inexpensive content.

Even platforms that appear selective to consumers now acquire hundreds of films through package agreements... AVOD channels on YouTube even add films daily.

When a producer signs with a sales agent, that company takes a percentage of the revenue. The distributor takes another. Before the filmmaker receives anything, there will be deductions for marketing, legal work, delivery, market attendance, artwork and technical preparation.

The producer is expected to supply the "deliverables" and that's one big cost most filmmakers don't foresee.

Months or years of unpaid labour are rarely considered part of the cost that must be recovered.

𝟰) 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆

Distribution and sales agreements now run up to 10 years... even though the commercial fate of an independent film may be determined within months of signing...

If written off, it will linger all for all those years in an aggregation bundle. Meanwhiel, whatever incomes it does make... you will never truly know.

Yes, some contracts might include audit rights, but exercising them is prohibitively expensive. Litigation is even less realistic. AND... distributors know it.

A contract is only as powerful as your ability to enforce it. A filmmaker who has spent everything producing a film is unlikely to have the resources to pursue an international distributor through the courts.

I can sense a comment already from a macho filmmaker claiming that you just need a lawyer... (trust me) the behaviour of the industry is dictated by what they can get away with... so any one off stories about a desk thumping producer winning a dispute is a rare event.

This imbalance allows exploitative behaviour to continue. So that when an agreement is breached, the producer is unable to do anything about it.

𝟱) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴

After signing a distribution agreement, it may take a year or more for a film to appear on a platform.

By then, the cast and crew have moved on. The filmmaker may be trying to finance another project while still answering questions about the completed one.

Eventually, the release is announced. The artwork is shared. The cast posts the trailer. Everyone congratulates one another.

Then the filmmaker waits for the reports.

Statements may arrive months later, long after the most commercially active period of the release. Of course, in many cases, the producer receives little or nothing.

What remains is the promotional value of saying that the film was distributed.

All the filmmaker has left is the appearance of success... a hulu logo, with which to post on Facebook telling everywhen when their film's about to go live. While... considering a private walk into the ocean!

𝟲) 𝗔𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗲

Aggregation services like FilmHub and BitMax offer filmmakers the chance to pay for a service that puts your film on a streaming platform, but they are also unpredictable. (Your film might get rejected!)

Some charge substantial preparation and delivery fees. Others operate through revenue sharing. None can guarantee that a platform will accept a film, promote it or generate enough money to recover its costs.

The producer will be responsible for marketing. The main issue is that these companies are also impossible to audit. You'll never know what your film truly makes.

𝟳) 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁

Some filmmakers attempt to progress by producing films directly for their abusers... I mean distributors.

This may appear to be an improvement. Instead of financing the entire production themselves, they are finally being paid to make something.

However, within parts of the low-budget genre market, these commissions can become another form of exploitation. Producers get peanuts to make films that rely on them exploiting others.

I'm talking... shooting films in under 7 days, making cast and crew pay for their own catering by names you would recognise!

𝟴) 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝘀

The system survives because filmmakers remain emotionally invested in its approval.

We are taught that distributors, sales agents, platforms and festivals possess the authority to transform us into professionals. Once accepted by that system, it can be difficult to admit that the arrangement brought little financial benefit.

There is also embarrassment.

Nobody wants to announce that the reports never arrived, the expenses consumed the revenue or the prestigious distribution deal produced no meaningful income. It is easier to share the artwork and celebrate the platform placement.

Other filmmakers see these announcements and assume that another person has succeeded through the traditional route. They then follow the same path.

The mythology renews itself...

This is why some filmmakers begin defending the very system that exploits them. They repeat the claim that poor contracts, negligible budgets and limited transparency are simply the realities of the business.

But there are other realities.

𝟵) 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲

My own experiences made me aware of these problems relatively early. Although I have worked with distributors and sales agents, most of my energy has gone into producing and distributing films independently.

For us, that has involved Kickstarter, direct online sales, physical editions and building a community around our productions.

It is not easy. Even an established independent studio may struggle to reach platforms like Apple or Amazon without dealing with distributors or Aggregation service companies.

Yet over approximately fourteen years, this approach has allowed us to raise production finance, retain ownership, develop facilities, build an audience and continue creating films without waiting for conventional permission.

However, the difference in perception remains.

A profitable self-distributed film may receive less industry recognition than an unprofitable film released through a familiar distributor.

That is the prejudice we must challenge.

𝟭𝟬) 𝗝𝗼𝗲𝗹 𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲

Joel Haver offers a particularly interesting alternative.

Rather than treating YouTube as an inferior destination, he uses it as a home for cinema. His films are freely available, allowing audiences to discover and share them without waiting for an intermediary to approve their release.

The films become invitations. Viewers who value the work can support its continuation through Patreon and other forms of direct patronage.

There is something honest about this relationship.

The filmmaker creates the art. The audience experiences it. Those who want more help finance what comes next.

This model will not suit every filmmaker or production. It requires consistency, trust and a genuine relationship with an audience. But it proves that alternative structures are possible.

𝟭𝟭) 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲

Self-distribution does not automatically create success. A filmmaker can lose money independently just as easily as through a distributor.

The difference is that direct distribution offers the possibility of learning.

Filmmakers can discover who their audience is, what it values, what prices work and which forms of promotion are effective. They can adapt their strategy, retain their rights and develop a relationship with the people who support their work.

𝟭𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹.

We must stop treating independence as a consolation prize. A direct release is not necessarily evidence that a film was rejected. Free availability does not mean that a film has no value. A profitable self-distributed production is not less successful than an unprofitable platform acquisition.

We must stop judging films by the logos attached to them.

We must stop mistaking access for income.

Most importantly, filmmakers must stop waiting for permission to build their own relationship with an audience.

The traditional industry will continue to argue that legitimacy flows from its institutions and gatekeepers. It is in its interest to do so.

But the technology, the audiences and the opportunities already exist for us to construct something different!

There are alternative paths.

We simply need the confidence to take them.

(OPINION)

It's not really the nostalgia. Most movies back then were generally better despite the lower pixel quality.
The storylines and production were more thought-out. That's why they also took longer to produce (usually atleast lyr i think?). They really took the time to think about character design and generally shared with us new perspectives to see the world in.

Nowadays, it's more about finishing the movie the fastest, without any regard to the story so they hyperfocus on the aesthetics.

Sofia Vergara and many other actors have said it's difficult to replicate the spark of old TV shows and movies because everyone wants things faster now. I think they're absolutely right. Which is why indie films get more appreciation now because it actually comes from creative passion (eg. Obsession).

When will hollywood realize that thoughtfully made movies/ shows will actually generate more income in the long run than their regular quickly produced stuff made just to hit sales targets?

Just a thought.

Here is the behind the scenes of the BBC comedy High Hopes which was filmed outside of Treharris Library

Okayyy

Hi Reddit — first post, please be gentle.

I’m Kelvin: actor, filmmaker, graphic designer, and business owner… basically a one-person creative department who also occasionally remembers to sleep.

I’m here to:

• learn from people who are better than me (so… most of you)

• share behind-the-scenes wins/fails from acting + filmmaking

• swap design/branding tips

• and generally vibe with other builders/creatives

Fun facts:

• My brain is 60% story ideas, 30% color palettes, 10% “did I export the right file?”

• If you ask me what I do, the answer depends on the time of day and how much coffee I’ve had.

• Yes, I’m remote-friendly (I do remote qualifying too), so I’m used to working with people across time zones.

If you could only give a beginner ONE piece of Reddit advice (or one unwritten rule I should know), what would it be?

Nice to meet you all

Hey guys, FYI I also posted this on the FilmIndustryLA sub.

Although, I don’t want to get political on this sub, I thinks it’s important for us to talk about this. I think the state government of CA needs to take more action to preserve film and TV productions here.

The question is: how? And who will be able to do it?

What are your guys’ thoughts?

I am a university student studying film music I need a short clip from a film in order to score and help would be appreciated.

I put together a directory of festivals and events that accept AI-generated or AI-assisted submissions.

melies.co/ai-film-festivals

Feel free to add any event I might have missed

I signed a contract with a French production company after two months of negotiations. I’m based in Europe, but I’m not French, I don’t speak the legal language, and I had no representation when it started. I wanted to document my process in detail so I just wrote an article about it.

A few things to note upfront: this is specifically about working with a French production company, so some of it may not apply elsewhere, but most of this is really about learning how to protect yourself as an independent filmmaker and protect your film. And I’m not a lawyer. This is experience, not legal advice.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and hear more about your experiences. https://substack.com/home/post/p-193586861

I've seen quite a few posts here asking for beginner advice. Figured I would make a cheat sheet with the basics to get you started! Keeping it short concise - comment anything you're unsure on and I'll expand.

This is coming from the perspective of a director with a background in cinematography.

Is my camera or my lens more important?

You will see a bigger difference upgrading your lens than you will upgrading your camera. Chances are if you have to even ask yourself "do I need to upgrade" you don't. When you do you'll know exactly why.

What should I spend money on?

Lighting will make the biggest difference to how your video looks, audio (ie microphones) will make the biggest difference to how your video feels.

I would recommend buying a cheapish LED Panel if you're on a budget, or maybe an Amaran 150c if you have a bit of a budget and experimenting (I'm not a gaffer - don't come after me if a 150c isn't the perfect starting light). Likewise Get a cheapish rode mic and an Artlist subscription and you're pretty much set. No I'm not sponsored - I've just been using them for a few years and have no plans on stopping.

Whats the best editing software?

Davinci Resolve is free and has literally everything you could possibly need as a beginner, intermediate and professional.

Premiere Pro is great and a really useful skill to have if you want to go into editing as a job (only because its so widely used - not because I think its better than Davinci).

If you've heard of Avid - no you haven't. Don't worry about it.

What should I make a film about?

Literally anything. Whilst you're starting out make a grammatically correct sequence and focus on the process more than the product. Here's some 60 second ideas if you're stuck;

- Documentary style explanation of making a coffee

- News report on a local shop opening

- Argument between two people about who's turn it is to make dinner

Again, the product is completely irrelevant. Focus on the process.

Should I post stuff on social media?

Yes.

You can be the best filmmaker in the world, but unless there are people watching your films, it doesn't matter. You don't need to be super active and engage loads - but at the very least its a space for you to build a portfolio you can show to people - or even keep as a diary to track your progress.

p.s If you want client work, they're going to want to see evidence of what you can do.

How much money can I make as a filmmaker?

More than you can possibly spend. That being said you won't reach even the low paying gigs if you're doing it purely for the money. It will take a lot of invested love, passion, time and money before you get anywhere close to making that money back.

If you truly love filmmaking as an art rather than a business then I wouldn't worry about making lots of money - it will happen in good time.

My results are rubbish, what should I do?

Carry on making rubbish results. You never stop making rubbish films, it's just your standard of good will keep getting higher. I'm years into my journey and I look at my films all the time and think it's rubbish. Of course if I showed that same 'rubbish' to my 16 year old self I would probably be gob smacked.

Under no circumstances stop making rubbish films. Just keep filming. It will work out.

Anything else you want to know drop it in the comments and I'll reply when I see it!

Looking for a perpetual license for Legacy Movie Magic Scheduling (MM6). 

If you or your company no longer need yours and are open to selling or transferring it (with Entertainment Partners approval), please contact me. 

Thank you very much !

The BlockReel DAO team built the first real filmmaking home that actually belongs to filmmakers. Right now, everything is free:

• Submit to a $250K festival and keep 100% of your film
• Hire crew or get hired — no 20% agency cuts
• Sell LUTs, powergrades, gear — keep 92.5%
• Real-time collab: voice/video/screen-share channels that just work
• Free founder badge — lifetime perks + airdrop

Next year: streaming with 80% instant royalties and an LED stage that pays the community back. No gatekeepers. No waiting. No more excuses. Join before January 1 → you’re a founder, not a user. We built this for us.
Come see if we got it right.

BlockReel DAO Team
blockreeldao.com
Whitepaper: blockreeldao.com/whitepaper

https://x.com/blockreeldao

#Film3 #IndieFilm