My original point in “At Least Hobbies Are Fun” was that most filmmakers probably make little or no money from their films, and that certainly films very rarely “make money” in the traditional concept of cost vs. return. There are an elite number of filmmakers who make money by being paid and an even more precious few who could say their independently financed film earned more on net than it cost to make. It’s becoming increasingly easier to reduce production costs, somewhat easier to self-distribute, and much more difficult to see massive ancillary returns through DVD sales. That could mean more filmmakers are breaking even. Ideally more people can make films, not lose their shirts, and even make enough to keep making more films.

Independent filmmaking has an industry around it. But that industry is not as important as it thinks it is, and this often accounts for the hysteria around this issue. Filmmaking does not actually need thousands of film festivals, panels, pitch sessions, heads of acquisitions, or parties at which the percentage of actual filmmakers is under 20. At this point, filmmaking needs access to equipment, to learning, to Creative Cow forums, to Vimeo.

Yes, financing and distribution are important, especially for higher-profile or amore ambitious projects. But reasonably speaking, in North America, how many independent projects can command budgets over $5 million? Those that can have to play by different rules, commercial rules, which is reasonable (otherwise just give the money to UNICEF or something).

Is Independent Filmmaking a hobby or a career? If you don’t see it as a hobby first, in my opinion, you are going to be unhappy. If you don’t love it, don’t feel like doing it whether you get paid or not, why not take up hedge fund management? Yes, you should be smart, make good business decisions, ideally you will prosper. But independent films aren’t made in a boardroom; they aren’t just mini studio films. They succeed because we love them, they are superior, and they come from people who could never do anything else.

I agree with the premise that film has been a privileged art throughout its short history and that “independent” film (the kind we crowdfund) has usually been the sport of people who didn’t need to actually work for a living.

However, the crowdfunding campaigns I’ve seen seem to have a more democratic flavour, relying more on a reputational economy than a strictly upper-middle-class paradigm. In general I think it’s good to call this out, but almost everything right now in the indie film world is affluent/white. Crowdfunding has potential to shift that dynamic. Plus, it is just way cheaper to realize a well-executed project now that has the chance to be seen by at least as many people as an old-school “independent film” was at a fraction of the cost. The old rules about film length and format can change when films don’t have to go through funds, festivals and distribution to be made and seen.

I have mixed feelings about subsidized arts. On the one hand, as a filmmaker, I could not realistically hire even a tiny crew without finding outside support. Ideally, that support would come from people who felt I could ultimately turn a profit, not an easy feat for documentaries, shorts or indie films. But what Kickstarter, IndieGoGo and other crowdfunding platforms show is that people are willing to pay/donate for the potential of supporting an experience they will enjoy (and feel a sense of ownership of, even if they don’t receive stock or title). Feeling a direct connection to the work being made is the first step to greater power for the artist, as has happened in music.

I’m about to start crowdfunding for my documentary Acceleration and the idea that the project will be judged on the campaign’s merits does feel scary. On the other hand, from a distribution standpoint, I think the more information filmmakers have about the viability of their projects in the marketplace, the better off they are. Kickstarter does not work like a “popularity contest” in which projects are compared against each other. Projects are weighed against the passion of their own specific audience and fanbase, so a more obscure project can still be important to a fanatical if narrow group.

Rooftop Films at Brooklyn Tech

A number of new venues have popped up around Brooklyn that show film some or all of the time. These can be great places to screen for a local or younger crowd or for a special event screening.

indiescreen – 285 Kent St in Williamsburg. Offers a full menu as well as first run indie movies.

Brooklyn Lyceum – shows occasional films and hosts Flicker NYC Super 8 nights.

The Bell House – Located in the Gowanus, hosts special events including screenings.

Galapagos- this lovely space in DUMBO (relocated from Williamsburg) hosts screenings as well as performance, music and other events.

reRun Gastropub Theater- in DUMBO, this small theater in the back of a bar offers a small menu and indie screenings.

Brooklyn Bowl – pair your premeire with some pins at Brooklyn Bowl’s screening space.

The Back Room at The Gutter – Bowling + Movies = Love, at least in Brooklyn.

Rooftop Films – The masters of outdoor summer screening fun use a number of Brooklyn venues.

Brooklyn Arts Council Gallery – in DUMBO, for BAC artists

Zora Art Space – Has occasional screening series in the heart of Park Slope.

The Knitting Factory – Mostly a music venue, the Brooklyn outpost of the minichain does show films from time to time.

Brooklyn Historical Society – 128 Pierrepont St. If your film is of Brooklynish historical relevance, this might be an option.

It’s also probably that many of the music venues around Brooklyn would be able to accomodate a 4-Wall type booking as most do have fairly robust A/V situations. Other options, if appropriate, are the library, churches, or community centres.

There is also the venerable BAM Cinematek, Cobble Hill Cinemas, and a new multiplex to open this fall in Williamsburg. Add more or tell us your experience with any of these venues in the comments.

Reaching the niche market of independent film fans has been a goal for a number of online film platforms. Fandor is the newest entry in the contest. Launched late last year by Jonathan Marlow from GreenCine and ‘serial entrepreneur’ Dan Aronson, Fandor is getting buzz for offering a large selection of curated titles at a $10/month subscription fee. Unlike Netflix, which pays a fee based on a contracted license period, Fandor offers a per-use model in which 20% of revenues are divided among the filmmakers regardless of plays and 30% are split based on an “attention algorithm” which presumably measures the amount of time people spend watching each film, perhaps accounting somehow for how long each film is. In any case, what that means, if we were considering gross revenues (which perhaps is not the case), if Fandor has 50,000 subscribers, you would be looking at a base of $33/month for your film to be on the service.

Netflix has 20 million members, so perhaps Fandor has room to grow. On the other hand, MUBI, formerly The Auteurs, seems to have stalled a bit and sites like IndieFlix have never really caught on in the mainstream. Fandor is betting on a specialty audience and a editorial viewpoint to draw people to the site.

There is no reason not to place a film on Fandor if you are selling to Netflix, and even if you don’t make a Netflix sale, Fandor touts that they will carry a wide selection of films Netflix doesn’t have. Will independent film fans pony up? And will there be enough cinephiles to make it worth it?

A few FlipCam conversations from DIY Days 2011 NYC. Host Lance Weiler, filmmaker and D-Word Captain Doug Block, and branding and business expert Jennifer Warren sum up.

Filmmakers can find this a bit depressing. Watching a film in a theatre is exciting. It’s big! It’s usually calibrated to look as good as it can. And most importantly, there are a bunch of people—strangers!—watching it together.

Creating this sense of spirit is a challenge for independents and perhaps the main opportunity to compete with the mainstream industry. We don’t have studio-size spends, but we can understand our audiences more precisely and have a more personal relationship.

For live settings, event screenings work very well. But can we make digital screenings social? We generally have little to no control over when people watch the films online, their physical circumstances, who, if anyone, they are with, or even if they watch the whole film.

Still, filmmakers have come up with some innovative ways of bringing the audience for digital screenings together. Transmedia, expressing your story in a different context, can play a great role. Lance Weiler’s Head Trauma featured a game that embedded clues in flash frames of the film itself, so viewers had to watch the film repeatedly to play and engaged with each other on the film’s site. You could offer live events to viewers of the movie during a digital rollout, such as a Skype-based Q&A. Using a technology like CrowdControls, viewers could identify their location and you could plan post-screening events in popular places.

Do you have other examples of ways to make online screenings exciting or social? Or are we doomed to living in a room with a virtual helmet?

Some of the best ways of getting information are networking-oriented, such as having conversations at film-related events, festivals and conferences. But when you are unable to make it to a face-to-face meeting place or you are just starting out, there are some excellent online resources that can help you start building relationships and getting the help you need.

The D-Word: This documentary-oriented site, started by filmmakers Doug Block and Ben Kampas, is a forum for documentarians of all kinds, with a welcoming and active population of participants.

IndieTalk- Funtional if basic forums for low-budget filmmakers

DV Creators- Primarily tech-related discussions about HD-production and post

Creative Cow Final Cut Pro Discussions- Newbie to uber-geeky FCP info

Filmmaker Magazine Forums- Not heavily used but could be useful

Celtx Forums: The excellent free scriptwriting software maintains forums on a variety of film topics

Vimeo Forums- The online video site has forums that can assist with online video issues

Do you frequent other online discussions? Let us know in the comments.

In film, a technology that in its “old fashioned” celluloid form is only a little over a century old, the future is unpredictable— but it is fairly certain that the future is significantly different than it is now. There is no reason to believe the medium (celluloid) will survive, no reason to believe there will be a tangible product associated with motion picture, no reason to believe running times will continue to hover in the 74-130 minutes range. That a business once existed for something is not a reason it will continue. If there is a demand, there will be ways to meet it. If the barriers are low and there are benefits for the producers, films will be made and disseminated regardless of business models.

Most importantly, we can’t predict how people will find ways to make things that are very good and not end up on welfare- unless welfare turns out to be very comfortable. But I would put my money (if I had any) on quality continuing to be something that will be supported somehow in whatever improbable future we may encounter.

Artists, particularly media and film artists, are at the mercy of this system since control of bandwidth is one of the few legal, effective approaches corporate media owners have left to enforce monetization of their products. This is how people access our work. We should be doing more than just demanding regulation or change, we should be actively seeking alternatives to the current broadband bottleneck. (And if my experience is anything to go on, 3G/4G wireless is not the solution).