Indie Film Premieres On BitTorrent Before Cinema

An anonymous reader writes "The first part of A Lonely Place For Dying is available on VODO while the filmmakers are getting ready for a theatrical run in early 2012. Viewers are asked to donate if they like what they see and if enough cash is raised they will be able to watch the film again on the big screen. In return for their contributions, donors are receiving digital downloads or credits in the upcoming release, you can even become an Executive Producer and get your name listed on IMDB. This is a brave move challenging Hollywood and their traditional 'release windows.'" "Indie" in this case definitely does not mean a Grade Z student film; James Cromwell knows his crime drama. The movie is being released serially, and BitTorrent donations are to be used to "complete a theatrical mix of the motion picture, create a digital cinema package, and get everything else ready to position the film in U.S. movie theaters."

Comments

MPAA quaking in their boots?

[mcgrew]

The internet and cheap recording (relatively cheap; the biggest cost of a professionally produced, recorded, and pressed CD is the cost of the musical instruments) has rendered the RIAA labels entirely obsolete. RIAA lables are of no use to anyone in the 21st century.

I can see the same thing happening to movies. Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning is certainly fat better than any B-movies I've ever seen. The South Park movie could have easily been "shot" for practically nothing. As of now, the big money the MPAA provides is still a prerequisite for a blockbuster action flick; smashing three dozen cars ain't cheap. But with improved CGI even that cost will be brought to effectively zero.

Bye Bye, M.A.F.I.A.A.. and good riddance.

Re:MPAA quaking in their boots?

[CastrTroy]

I've seen a couple of the productions on this VODO site, namely Pioneer One, and The Tunnel. Both were watchable, but I would say they are both not quite as good as a Hollywood production. The acting seems to be noticeably worse. I'm not sure what it is, but it seems that in these low budget movies, they seem to just keep the shot as long as the lines are correct as per the script, and don't seem to worry about whether or not they are delivered properly. At lot of the dialog seems really unnatural. Whereas in hollywood they would make the actors redo the scene until it was perfect, it seems that in indie films this just doesn't happen. Overall, I think that indie movies have their place, but that big budget movies aren't going anywhere. Although they may change their distribution model a little bit.

Re:MPAA quaking in their boots?

[ScentCone]

Now, they make the best "TV" on TV.

And that's because they are attracting and using very large chunks of Eeeeevil Corporate Money. You know, the sort of financing that makes large scale, professionally produced and acted works possible. People have no idea what it takes to put together something HBO's Game Of Thrones episodes, for example. The set construction and horse wrangling alone costs more, for legitimate reasons, than most bad "indie" productions will ever muster. And it shows.

Re:MPAA quaking in their boots?

[geniice]

RIAA labels offer marketing. The general failure of myspace bands to ah "make it" suggests this is important.

That's not a movie

[imunfair]

Length: 27m

Looks like a short film to me. Do theaters even show something that short? Maybe they could replace all those trailers with that, because it seems like they show half an hour of those before each movie now.

Re:That's not a movie

[reeno49]

There was a second Matrix movie?! Why didn't I know about this?!?

When's the 3rd due out?

Free like beer or free like speech?

[achlorophyl]

Open-source is where it's at... Who's to say a _film couldn't be open-sourced? The initial developer would post digital of her cut, maybe even zip archives of scenes, sound effects, and alt versions -- then secondary directors could "have at it"..! But it would be like the GNU license -- if you screw with this free, raw film, you have to make _your version free also..! Basically, I'm thinking that the whole "copyright/piracy" system is dead in the water. With the Earth on the brink of being destroyed by humanity, we rebellious elements of this humanity need _lots of freedom -- both like beer, and like speech -- if anyone will have a chance to change anything!

Re:Free like beer or free like speech?

[hedwards]

The problem is that it's an extremely limited concept. I suppose you could offer up stock footage on that basis, but you'd still need an incredible amount of actual footage to go with. Probably the best bet would be to offer up Blender models for rendering with a permissive license.

And stock footage rarely if ever looks good, I've seen it in all sorts of places over the years and probably the only place that it seemed to work was on the Muppet Babies.

Re:Free like beer or free like speech?

[Baron Eekman]

The Blender showcase film Sintel has all source needed to render it freely available.

No, it's not 'brave'; it's just an attempt at PR

[DavidinAla]

No, this isn't brave or any such nonsense. It's just a way to get publicity for a low-budget film that nobody would hear of otherwise. The odds of this succeeding are pretty close to zero. I'm a wannabe filmmaker, so I keep up with this world avidly. It might very well be a smart strategy that will attract the producer enough attention that he can leverage it into some financing. But it's not likely. Even if it worked, it would be a one-trick pony. I'm just surprised that some people are falling for something this obvious.

Very impressed

[airfoobar]

This is quite well made, and I recommend it. Note that it's not technically a film, as this appears to be the first episode of a mini-series, with the second episode coming in a few weeks. That said, my favourite movie on Vodo is still by far The Tunnel.

Much less here then meet the eye

[Required Snark]

A huge part of the film production chain is in distribution. It is so critical that, for non-major studio pictures, distributors must be found before the film is started. Independent films can get made, find no real distribution, and are never heard from again.

So saying that you are distributing you film over bittorrent is like saying that you are self publishing a book. Good luck with that. You have about as much chance as success with no theatrical release as a self published book has of getting on the NY Times best seller list.

Re:No, it's not 'brave'; it's just an attempt at P

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this isn't brave or any such nonsense. It's just a way to get publicity for a low-budget film that nobody would hear of otherwise.

Everywhere on /. you hear all these people harping on about file-sharing's potential as free advertising, here we have some artists experimenting with ways that can be exploited... and here you are, a

wannabe filmmaker

judging the choices of those who are out there trying new things and innovating. I'm sorry to say this, but until you are out there gambling with your own work, and can offer a better idea about how to leverage the internet (without passing censorship and surveillance laws), I suggest you keep quiet.

Brave or copycat?

[Dr Black Adder]

This is oh so similar to the Australian movie 'The Tunnel' which raised funds through a pre-release 'buy a frame from the movie' approach. Regardless of something similar being done before, it's still great to see people solving piracy without lawyers and punishing the consumer! Go FTW!

Not going to dethrone Hollywood

[leamanc]

Yeah, this is neat, but I already thought a lot of movies premiered on Bit Torrent before the cinema!

In all seriousness, filmmakers have been working around Hollywood since there has been a Hollywood to work around. There have always been independent filmmakers getting their movies made, and then using non-traditional means to exhibit them. In the past, this may have meant selling directly to the home 16mm market, with hopes of getting enough money to strike some 35mm prints and distribute nationally. Or they could have taken it in on the college circuit, or the art-film circuit, first. Later on, public access and more traditional cable TV were outlets to get films noticed. Just a little more than 15 years ago, The Last Seduction premiered on HBO, and later became a cinema box office success.

These developments just represent the latest technology coming in to play. But sorry, this is not going to dethrone the MPAA or any other part of the Hollywood machine in our lifetimes. It's just a way that will potentially mean more people can see the films than before. There may be access to more finances for the filmmakers, but do you seriously think that the Bit Torrent downloading community is going to cough up serious bucks? No, they want their stuff for free (read: they think they are entitled to free entertainment). The only people who are going to cough up tens of thousands of dollars just to see their name as an "Executive Producer" on screen are people who want to be in the film business anyway...just like the guy who funded Manos: The Hands of Fate 40-some years ago.

So yeah, this is neat, but don't read too much into it. It's not a revolution. And if it were, Hollywood soon swallow it up, just like they did with Easy Rider and its progeny in the late '60s/early '70s, or like they did with Steven Soderbergh and Quentin Tarantino, and all the other Miramax filmmakers that broke indie filmmaking through to the mainstream in the late '80s/early '90s. The great thing about capitalism is that it eventually swallows up all threats to it.