The producer credited with helping to launch the careers of Vincent Ward and Jane Campion says he would sell his films for $2 on the internet if it would get them to fans when they wanted them.

John Maynard wants New Zealand to pioneer an iTunes-like system for movies - getting films out quickly and cheaply on the internet to stop people turning to illegal downloads.

The Australasian producer, who has worked on two movies each by Ward and Campion, said the growth of iTunes had slowed illegal downloads of music. This week he told the Screen Production and Development Association (Spada) conference New Zealand could lead the world by adopting a similar model for films.

"It could happen in New Zealand - it's one of the few places in the world I know that can change very, very quickly culturally," he said. "I would rather sell my movies for $2 a download and make it available to its audience" than have people steal them.

In April, the Motion Pictures Association representative in New Zealand - Tony Eaton of the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft - recommended Hollywood studios create a New Zealand website for legally downloading movies to reduce internet piracy.

Yesterday, Mr Eaton told the Spada conference that more than a third of the $6 billion film studios lost to piracy in 2005 was from illegal internet downloads.

He said the new James Bond film Quantum of Solace had been illegally downloaded 3.2 million times - before its New Zealand release.

Until recently, the federation's focus has been on pirated DVDs. Demand for movie downloads in New Zealand has been stunted by slow broadband speeds. But it is expected to increase when broadband gets faster.

Sony Pictures New Zealand general manager Andrew Cornwell said music downloads were easier to sell because they downloaded much faster than films.

There is a huge battle brewing between film producers, ISP's, Copyright Law and the consumer. Hopefully, the consumer will win.

One of my favorite movies of all time is Woody Allan's Hollywood Ending. What makes the picture so funny is that Allan who plays a "once famous," down and out director who is hired to do his "come-back film." Of course in the cast of the present HOLLYWOOD, it has a big problem on it's hands. What is it? Cash for new projects.  Here is a great over view I found at Forbes.

The movie business isn't recession-proof, after all.

Judging by the box office--a record-setting $70 million opening for Quantum of Solace, fans camping out for Twilight and a blockbuster holiday season ahead--things seem great in Hollywood. But look away from the glow of the screen, and Tinseltown gets a lot darker.

All of the 10 highest-grossing studios, which control 91% of U.S. market share have scaled back or combined their operations in recent months. This year's top-grossing studio, Warner Brothers Entertainment, shuttered two of its independent arms, Picturehouse and Warner Independent Pictures, and absorbed a third, New Line Cinema, in an effort to cut costs. Their total film output will drop to 20 films this year, down 25% from last year's slate. Paramount and 20th Century Fox made similar cuts.

It isn't the terrible economy--yet. People are still going to movies. The big problem is Wall Street. Without money from private equity and big investment banks, which injected an estimated $10 to $18 billion into Hollywood in the last four years, studios have had to change the way they do business--fast. "I would be very dubious for Hollywood as we know it surviving," says David Thomson, film critic and author of Have You Seen ...?

The American film industry "can't sustain much higher growth rates or attract capital at the same low rates the way they could a year or two ago," says Harold Vogel, president of Vogel Capital Management and author of Entertainment Industry Economics. "All the risk has been repriced."

As financing costs escalate, so will production costs. That means fewer films. Though the reduction ripple won't hit the box office until 2010, the number of productions will be down 5% to 10% over the next few years, predicts Vogel. The total number of feature films in wide release climbed from 478 in 2000 to 631 last year, a 32% increase. The number of movie tickets sold increased by only 1% in that same period.

The independent film industry may shrink even more. According to remarks made by Mark Gill, CEO of The Film Department, at the L.A. Film Festival last June, of the 5,000 films submitted to Sundance last year only "maybe five" would make money. There were 477 independent films made in 2007, according to the Independent Film & Television Alliance, each costing an average of $16.5 million to make.

"There's been an open spigot of money flowing into Hollywood, and the pictures are killing each other," says John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theatre Owners. "We can't handle the number of movies we're getting right now."
Comment On This Story

International financing has increased importance. Recently, Abu Dhabi Media announced it will spend $1 billion over the next five years on U.S.-produced feature films. Steven Spielberg's new venture is being funded with $1.5 billion in equity and debt from India's Reliance ADA group.

The theater industry is also feeling the pinch as it transitions from film to digital projection. "The traditional funding sources are currently shut down," says Bud Mayo, CEO of Access IT, a third-party integration company that has converted 70% of the digital screens in the U.S. Last fall, Access IT announced plans to furnish 10,000 additional screens in by the first quarter 2011. They've installed eight so far this year.

Loans from investment banks provided companies like Access IT with the credit to install the new equipment, while studios essentially pay off that debt through a fee--usually around $1,000--for every digital copy they ship to the movie theaters. "As long as the movie theaters show movies, we're going to get paid," says Mayo. "We're very bullish on the industry."

Though the nationwide overhaul would cost near $3 billion, it would save distributors and theater owners nearly a billion dollars a year by replacing the cumbersome, costly film reels with digital versions. Currently 5,200 screens, or 13% of all the screens in the U.S., are digital.

Theaters without digital technology will be at a loss in the coming years as consumer demand for, and output of, 3-D movies increases. Starting in 2010, about 20% of all wide-release films will be in 3-D, a format that can only be shown on digital projectors with an additional converter.

Fithian remains an optimist. "History clearly shows that the cinema business tends to do better during recessionary times," says Fithian. "We have to have good movies to get people to come to the cinema." Maybe just not so many.

Kevin Smith is an amazing filmmaker who started out totally independent making the film Clerks on his credit cards totally 27,000 Dollars. He later sold the film to Miramax for 1.5 Million Dollars.


Here are some recent questions and answers with Kevin Smith at University Of Kansas.

Since writing, directing and producing the 1994 cult classic Clerks, Kevin Smith has become one of the biggest names in comedic filmmaking. Smith’s newest film, Zach and Miri Make a Porno, hit theaters last Friday. Jayplay recently had the opportunity to chat with Smith as part of his conference call with other student journalists around the country. Q. You’ve had a lot of difficulties with the marketing for Zach and Miri Make a Porno. What’s the big deal with the word “porno?”

A. I knew when we titled the movie Zach and Miri Make a Porno that it was going to turn some people off. I assumed that the people who would be turned off by that title were never going to see the movie in the first place, so I didn’t think it would be a big deal. But suddenly cities have been popping up that won’t allow us to put a billboard up. Like Philadelphia wouldn’t allow us to put up any billboard that had the word “porno” on it. I was flabbergasted, because I felt like we had used the cutest word possible to describe that industry. I understand people who wouldn’t be into pornography, but you can’t object to the term. How else are we supposed to describe it?

Q. Do you think this movie will change views of pornography?

A. I think most people will take this movie for what it is. I don’t think they’ll look at it like, “Hey, man, suddenly this is changing everything I’ve ever felt about the porn industry.” I’m not looking to convert people. I’m just looking to entertain them with this one story. There are a bunch of people out there that find it offensive, and I get that. And there are a bunch of people—mostly dudes—who see it as an essential part of their day. I don’t think the movie will affect that.

Q. How did growing up in New Jersey affect your filmmaking?

A. I think the area in New Jersey where I grew up affected the dialogue I write, where it’s kind of candid dialogue with a lot of vulgarity, because that’s just my circle of friends. I imagine if I grew up anywhere else it wouldn’t be that much different, although having the friends I have has certainly influenced me as a filmmaker as far as the stories I like to tell.

But you grow up in New Jersey and you’re kind of always growing up in the shadow of New York, and you’re the butt of a lot of jokes. There’s still that necessity to prove yourself to people, so I think we tend to try harder. Growing up in Jersey is like growing up fat. You just tend to try harder.

Q. You’ve always been known as a talented writer, but how do you feel your directing skills and the look of your movies have improved over the years?

A. Only recently has that stuff started to improve because I’ve started putting some thought into it. I’m not a born filmmaker, where it’s in my genes. I don’t live, breath and eat film. But I do like to write. When I made Clerks, it was more about writing the script and directing actors. I never really thought of the look of the film. And then when the reviews for the movie came in, people would write wonderful things about it, but invariably every review would say, “Well, it looks like shit, but man is it fun.” So I kind of took that, idiotically, as a pass to never try to improve my visual game, because I’m like, “As long as people are laughing, nobody gives a shit what it looks like.” It was only on Clerks 2 that I really started trying. I think that movie is the first one that I look at and go, “Oh, that is actually a visually interesting film.”

Q. What are you doing now that Zach and Miri is finished?

A. Hopefully in the spring I’m going to do a flick called Red State. It’s a little political horror movie. I’m looking forward to it because I don’t really feel like a filmmaker most days. I just feel like a guy who directs the stuff that he happens to write. With Red State, I get to switch genres altogether. There are no laughs in the movie whatsoever. I feel like if I can pull this one off, I might feel more like a filmmaker. If not, I’ll just be like, “Okay, I get it. I’m a dick-and-fart joke guy, and I should just do that for the rest of my life.”

Q. What advice would you give young filmmakers trying to break into the business?

A. I’d just say everybody should tell the exact story they want to tell, never mind the influence of people telling you how to change it or make it more marketable. At the end of the day, you’ve got to live with that movie for the rest of your life. That’s your flick. If you start subverting what you set out to do, then it stops being yours. Stick with your voice, because nobody else has your voice, so nobody else can do what it is that you want to do.

A growth in infrastructure is also fueling the acceptance of small budget films
Written by Gouri Shah

Walk into any multiplex today and chances are, a majority of the films being played out on those screens are small budget films featuring new talent. Whether it is the hilarious comedy about non-resident Indians called Loins of Punjab, thriller Johnny Gaddaar featuring newcomer Neil Nitin Mukesh, films such as Bheja Fry and Life in a Metro, or internationally acclaimed films such as The Namesake—industry experts say it is clear that audiences are developing a sensibility for small, independent films.

The box-office takings aren’t bad either: Madhur Bhandarkar’s Traffic Signal, which cost Rs5 crore to produce, made Rs15 crore at the box office, says an industry analyst. Right on cue, some film production houses are setting up separate divisions or companies under the parent brand to work on small budget projects. These have budgets less than Rs5 crore, and are generally less dependent on commercial success than mainstream Bollywood films.

“Today, production houses don’t have a choice but to start looking at small budget films or independent films. With actors turning producers, producers are now looking at lesser known names and smaller projects as an effective way to keep the ball rolling,” said Taran Adarsh, trade analyst, and editor of Trade Guide, a film business weekly. Top Bollywood actors such as Shah Rukh Khan, Juhi Chawla, Aamir Khan, Arjun Rampal, Ajay Devgan and wife Kajol have set up film production houses of their own. But why would studios set up separate divisions for budget films? Industry experts say there are several reasons ranging from de-risking their portfolio and clarity in brand strategy, a shift to large studio formats, to ensuring the inflow of new talent. They are also using high-content “art” films as an inroad to the international awards scene and markets beyond non-resident Indians.

“Today, with multiplexes, these small budget films can actually be made, and can be given a theatrical release to audiences with a growing sensibility for such work,” said Siddharth Roy Kapur, executive vice-president, marketing, UTV Motion Pictures.

These projects have a longer shelf life compared with bigbudget films, where the opening week is extremely crucial. “So, you could release a few prints first and the perception created by running full house for the first few weeks is extremely effective. Buzz is built purely on word-of-mouth,” said Navin Shah, chief executive officer, P9 Integrated Pvt. Ltd, which has a separate unit, P9 Searchlight, for small budget films.When it comes to selling an independent or small budget film, it’s vital to work smart. “You are catering to a discerning audience and, more often than not, (are on) a modest marketing budget,” said Shah. His company, which was responsible for marketing Traffic Signal, sponsored T-shirts with the logo ‘Traffic Signal’ for a large group of traffic cops running the Mumbai Marathon early this year.

There are two revenue streams for both big and small budget films: theatrical—through the number of prints sold—and non-theatrical—comprising home DVDs, satellite rights, DD telecast rights, etc. The only difference is that the territories and rights for big budget films are much larger. They also have additional streams of revenue comprising music rights, downloadable properties such as wallpapers, ringtones, music and international releases which are very rare for small budget films. Still, small is clearly getting big in filmdom.

Each and every day we will do our best to point out the deals, dreams and trends affecting the film and entertainment business.