This week I’m taking that one stage further, and looking at how the films from these two equally-sized cohorts differ.

Along the way we’re going to learn:

1. Do film school graduates make better films?

2. Are those films more successful financially?

3. Which of the top film schools produce the most successful graduates?

Do employers care if you went to film school?

Last week’s piece includes a breakdowns of the arguments both for and against attending film school so I won’t re-hash them here. But I did want to start out with a particularly interesting chart from a past research project.

A while back I did a survey with thecallsheet.co.uk in which quizzed UK film and TV employers. We asked them all manner of questions, including what qualifications they valued in new entrants.

Having a university degree scored pretty poorly (1.3 out of 5 for TV employers, and just 0.7 for film), but having a film degree scored even lower (0.8 for TV and 0.7 for film).

This shows that just having a film degree is not a passport into crew employment, and if anything, could be a hindrance (i.e. employers preferred non-film graduates over film graduates!).

So if it’s not going to help you when you first try to break in, maybe going to film school will be linked to better outcomes when you get to the top of the chain and are put in charge of directing a movie.

Let’s see what the data shows.

Do film school graduates make better films?

Art is subjective, but does film operates in a commercial marketplace and there are vast numbers of signals to indicate what different types of people thought of any particular movie.

Among the signals we have for a film’s quality are its IMDb user score (out of 10, and representing film audiences), and the Metascore (which average critics, providing a score out of 100).

Film school graduates under index on the worst movies. Only 43.4% of the directors behind movies scoring under 5 on IMDb had attended film school. But it’s also true to say that they under-index among the very best film, making up 45.7% of films scoring over 8 out of 10.

So we might say that film school graduates making the ‘most mid’ films.

Let’s see what critics think.

It’s the same. So much so, that in writing this I had to keep checking I had the correct chart in each slot!

The very best and very worst films, according to critics, have the lowest representation of film school graduates.

There are some interesting differences between which film school the director went to, but before we look at that data let’s turn to money.

Are films from film school graduates more successful?

The modern film business is as much about money as it is art, so let’s turn to looking at rates of profitability.

We saw last week that film graduates are more likely to be given the reins of the biggest movies (i.e. the make up a majority of directors of films costing over $73 million and minority of those under).

I estimated the profitability of each of those movies so we can get a sense of whether a formal film education is correlated with financial success.

Read more

I have been collecting public data on the backgrounds of top film directors to investigate things like class, nepotism and the importance of film school.

We’re going to start this week with a look at how many top film directors attended film school.

And then next week we’ll look at the outcomes of those films - i.e. is going to film school correlated with making successful / good / profitable movies?

How many directors went to film school?

I looked at educational history of the directors at the helm of the 1,250 top grossing films since 2000. There is much more detail of my methodology in the Notes section at the end of the article.

Across the cohort, I could find evidence that 49.3% had attended a film school.

This has been fairly static over the past quarter century.

What types of films do film school graduates make?

The genres which feature a greater degree (if you’ll pardon the pun) of film school graduates are sci-fi and fantasy films. These are typically made by big studios, whereas the genres at the other end of the spectrum (romance, drama, and biographies) are often made at a smaller scale.

Do film school graduates get to direct bigger movies?

This is confirmed when we look at the budgets of the movies. Film school alumni are in the majority among the directors’ chairs of films costing over $73 million but are a minority among movies under that figure.

This dataset doesn’t contain many truly low budget movies as it’s looking at the 50 top grossing films of each year, which don’t typically feature many small scale productions.

Next week I am going to share data on whether to movies made by these film school graduates are better, more successful and profitable than those by people who didn’t attend film school.

Should a wannabe director go to film school?

I’m sure this topic will raise the ire of many folk, both those for and against attending film school. It’s a hot topic and one people are keen to share their views on.

I’m all for that, and to help I thought it would make sense to add a few top-line thoughts on why a wannabe director might choose to either seek out or skip out of film school.

The case for attending film school

There is much to be said in favour of choosing to attend a film school, including:

• Access to working filmmakers. Most tutors will be (or have been) working film professionals. Plus, some top programmes offer internships, labs and showcases that are designed to push you in front of top film professionals who could hire you.

• All the gear (and some idea). Schools give you access to stages, kit, crew and post facilities you can use to shoot fast and often. During my time at film school, hire companies would often take pity on us and allow us to hire top-end kit for next to nothing, but only because we were covered by the school’s insurance policy.

• A cohort of fellow film nerds. Recognised credential. You’ll find many people who share your passion for film and desire to get films made. Lifelong partnerships and working relationships are forged at film school.

• Honesty and feedback. Classes force deadlines and critiques that speed up iteration and craft. There’s nothing like having to show your work to tutors and fellow students to bring home the reality that good work is hard to make.

• Cronyism. Sorry, alumni network. Established schools maintain communities that generate introductions years after you graduate.

Martin Scorsese said of his time at NYU:

It was [my cinema professor Haig Manoogian] and this school that taught me I could be more than crazy

George Lucas described his time at USC thusly:

…once I got to film school and learned about movies, I just fell in love with it.

And Jane Campion said of Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS):

There was a really interesting group [at film school] when I was there… definitely there were a lot of people with an art school touch, and we bonded a lot. We used to do the night shift at school and taught each other.

The case against attending film school

On the other side of the ledger we have:

• It can be beyond-crazy expensive. For one year, on-campus the tuition cost alone for USC is around $73k, NYU Tisch is $67k and UCLA is $74k. I’m not singling these institutions out - the whole thing is very expensive. Plus you need to include the cost of accommodation, travel, food, weed, and books. (This might be a moot point if you’re lucky enough to live somewhere with free education such as Scotland, Germany, Greece, Argentina, Brazil, and the Nordic countries).

• Echo-chambers of non-average folk. Due to the selective nature, and the high costs, you’re not studying with a broad demographic of people. In my experience teaching at private film schools, I witnessed a large number of people who could be classed as ‘children of the rich who want to be “studying” in London but not, you know, actually studying"‘.

• It may not help your career. Next week I’m going to share what the data reveals on this topic, but for now it’s enough to say that attending film school is not like how lawyers have to pass the bar, or how doctors have to go through many years of rigorous training. A degree from a film school opens no doors in and of itself.

• You don’t need to. So much information is available online, in books, in short courses, or can be learned on the job. When you had to learn the intricacies of shooting on film there was a stronger case for film schools being your best route but the world today is awash with ways to learn and hone your craft.

And there are no shortage of indie filmmakers lining up to take a pop at the idea of formal film school training, starting with Quentin Tarantino who said:

Trying to make a feature film yourself with no money is the best film school you can do.

When people ask me if I went to film school, I tell them, ‘No, I went to films,'”

James Cameron is glad he didn’t go:

One of the best things that happened to me was that I didn’t go to film school. … I didn’t study film aesthetics because I figured it becomes too solipsistic – it’s just about other movies. You need … life experience, so you have something to say… not just based on other movies.

Paul Thomas Anderson refers to film school as “a complete con”:

My filmmaking education consisted of finding out what filmmakers I liked were watching, then seeing those films. I learned the technical stuff from books & magazines… Film school is a complete con, because the information is there if you want it.

Finally, Terry Gilliam tackled the topic with his trademark subtlety and delicacy when saying:

Film school is for fools. Live and learn how to make films. I didn’t go to film school. I just watched movies in the cinemas. And probably my greater education was actually making films, so… watch movies, get a camera, make a movie. And if you do it enough times, eventually you start learning how films are made.

Statement of interest

I am very interested in this topic! I have been connected with film education, both formal and informal, for all of my adult life. The data I’ve shown today are just counting the publicly available facts, so I don’t think I’ve added any subjective perspective to them. But, just to be safe, I thought it might be helpful to declare my background on the topic.

• I went to film school. I got a 2:2 in Film Production at the Surrey Institute of Art and Design. For those unfamiliar with the UK educational system, that’s a poor grade at a middling institution.

• I went on to teach in the evenings and occasional modules at the Met Film School in my 20s. My office was in Ealing Studios alongside the Met and the money I received from teaching producing kept my production company afloat and my rent paid.

• I ended up teaching at film schools around the world, from New York to Nashville, Manchester to Malaysia, Belfast to Beaconsfield.

• In the years leading up to the pandemic I used to teach twice a year at NYU. At Tisch I would teach filmmakers how to use data, and at Stern I would teach lawyers not to. I also ran short courses with NYU’s fantastic Production Lab.

• Finally, I have been the Chairman of the Central Film School in London for just over a decade (although I will be stepping down this year).

• On the other hand, I have been a loud, enthusiastic advocate for non-formalised film training. These often form a decentralised syllabus for filmmakers who can’t afford the time or money to attend film school, or who enter the industry later in life. I’ve taught on 100s of short courses, lectures, workshops, etc. In many cases I have seen how this approach has worked out better for those who might have otherwise attended a formal film school.

Overall, I would say I am neither pro nor anti film school.

There are many things it does well, and I have seen many students thrive under the creative, supportive environment it can provide (not to mention the kit, chums, and challenges).

But I am also deeply concerned by the costs involved, and have witnessed myself that not all tutors, courses or schools are providing good value. There are so many more ways to get your ideas shot, seen and sold these days that film school doesn’t mean what it used to.

So it’s a case-specific solution. Good for some, not for others.

Notes

Todays research looked at everyone credited with directing a movie between 2000 and 2024 inclusive that was in the top 50 grossing movies at the Domestic box office each year. That’s 682 people, sharing 1,417 directing credits, across 1,250 films.

The charts show percentage of directing credits, by the year the film was released. I was not able to find biographical information of every person. If I found nothing on their education then they were excluded but if I found evidence that they studied something other than film, then they counted as ‘not a film school graduate’.

I focused on graduate and postgraduate film schools, rather than short courses.

This research relies on self-reported public information being easily accessible. This opens it up to no end of limitations from lying, to private people, to the vagaries of what attended means (i.e. some attended but were kicked out or performed poorly).

Correlation does not equal causation. In fact, 100% of people who think it does, die. So we have to be careful how much we read into the fact someone did or did not go to a film school.

By their very nature, top film schools are highly competitive and so are likely to attract the very best students. This means we would expect to see them outperforming those who were not selected even if the school had little or no effect on their talent or career. (A very similar effect been proven in repeated studies related to selective schools in America).

You can read the other parts here:

• The five biggest concerns facing US cinema exhibitors today

• Can cinemas survive the next 20 years? Exhibition execs on the post-COVID recovery and beyond

• What the exhibition sector thinks the next generation of cinema-goers wants

In this article I will focus on what our interviewees think of the next generation of cinema-goers.

In this final part of our four-part research project, I want to share the direct and honest feedback I heard from cinema owners, programmers, and exhibition executives. These are the people who work with audiences every day, i.e. the people with the strongest incentive to get it right.

They called on the industry to:

1. Tell new stories. Audiences and cinemas are fatigued by sequels and reboots, and are crying out for fresh, original films that surprise and engage.

2. Make films for a wide range of audiences. Cinemas need films that appeal to families, older viewers, women, and underrepresented audiences, not just the usual blockbuster crowd.

3. Bring back the theatrical window. Exhibitors are demanding a meaningful period of exclusivity before films move to streaming so theatrical can remain viable.

4. Listen to audiences. Film decisions should be driven by real audience preferences and feedback, not just industry habits or creative instinct.

5. Give smaller cinemas a fair chance. Current models make it difficult for independents to compete, and these venues need flexibility and business terms suited to their scale.

6. Invest in film promotion. Marketing budgets and support should reach beyond blockbusters so more films can find and grow their audiences.

7. Support cinemas with sensible ticket pricing. Rising prices risk pushing audiences away, so cinemas and studios need to work to keep moviegoing affordable for as many people as possible.

8. Treat cinemas as long-term partners. A stronger and more balanced partnership between exhibitors and film companies is vital for the sector’s survival.

9. Give cinemas more control over scheduling. Operators need flexibility to respond to audience demand, adjust showtimes, and keep their programmes relevant and fresh.

10. Keep film length in check. Audiences are turned off by films that run too long. Shorter, sharper features help maximise attendance and satisfaction.

Let’s go into each in a bit more depth, along with verbatim quotes so we can hear from the folks on the big screen front line.

1. Tell new stories

Cinemas are urging studios and filmmakers to take more creative risks and stop leaning on tried-and-tested formulas. Across the board, the call is for original ideas that bring something new to the big screen.

The lack of originality and diversity in the films on offer was by far and away the most common message which came up in this research.

Audiences are showing fatigue with sequels and reboots and want is a chance to be surprised, entertained, and moved by fresh voices and inventive stories.

More original ideas and less remakes.

While sequels can drive the business, we need more original content that can not only attract new audiences but grow into their own sequels or series.

There are far too many remakes, live-action remakes, sequels, and cookie-cutter new films that don't diverge from your expectations. I love it when I leave the theatre feeling refreshed and or uncomfortable because the film caught me off guard.

2. Make films for a wide range of audiences

Another complaint about the films they can show was the narrowness of the intended audience(s). There is strong demand for a broader mix of genres and life experiences, often framed as to give everyone a reason to visit the cinema.

In practice this means:

• More genre diversity.

• Better representation.

• Attention to underserved segments like women, older viewers, and families.

• Better supply of comedies, romance, faith-based stories, anime, and documentaries. In short, not just blockbusters or superhero films.

A wider mix brings more people through the doors and keeps cinema relevant for every community.

The interviewees mentioned this in a number of ways, from the short and pithy:

We need more films for women.

To the slightly more nuanced:

There seems to be a shortage of romantic comedies. People still want to escape to movies to have a laugh and a good time with relatable experiences. Need more content and release schedule divided over the entire year as too many gaps with no film content for most audiences.

Although the majority of the comments were aimed at the studios, exhibitors also appealed to independent filmmakers to fill these gaps.

Guests want more stories from independent film makers that include good marketing, so they are aware of releases. Too much emphasis is placed on major blockbusters. More studios to create faith-based movies. Angel Studios does well with their content in our market. More film releases per month or year. A key draw to streaming is not just convenience, it is also variety of available content.

Regardless of whether they are indie or studio-backed, cinemas just want a wider range of films on their screens.

I feel there is a dearth of comedies that would appeal to either a broad audience or underrepresented audiences. The occasional romantic comedy or comedic film with a predominantly black or Asian cast will pop up and usually find an audience. There should be more of that to drive regular moviegoing.

3. Bring back the theatrical window

Cinemas are crying out for a proper period of exclusivity before films hit streaming or home viewing options. They contend that when films go online too quickly, audiences learn to just wait and stay home. A strong window not only gives cinemas a chance to build buzz and revenues, it helps remind people what is special about seeing films in a shared, big-screen setting.

Honour the exclusive theatrical window. This should be at least 45 days, but preferably 65 plus.

Day and date and short windows could kill theatrical.

The release window needs to go back to 45 days plus. No day and date programming with streaming services.

We saw this reflected in the quantitative part of the research. A majority of exhibition professionals want at least six weeks of exclusivity. In fact, 81% chose a window between six weeks and three months.

4. Listen to audiences

Cinema professionals are urging the industry to pay closer attention to the needs and preferences of real moviegoers.

Finding and serving your audience starts from the very first stages of development. Operators want films that reflect local tastes and the changing expectations of different generations.

Marketing, engagement and programming should all be based on actual audience feedback, not just creative instinct or industry trends.

They gave this advice to filmmakers:

Read more

You can read the other parts here:

• The five biggest concerns facing US cinema exhibitors today

• Can cinemas survive the next 20 years? Exhibition execs on the post-COVID recovery and beyond

In this article I will focus on what our interviewees think of the next generation of cinema-goers.

Audience habits are changing

Every generation reshapes cinema in some way. But today’s shift feels more precarious as the habits that sustained theatrical exhibition for decades are no longer guaranteed.

Most professionals working in exhibition agree that younger audiences are driving lasting changes to how cinemas operate. They are seen as more price-sensitive, more focused on atmosphere, and less attached to conventional cinema norms.

The strongest point of agreement is that the overall experience matters more to younger viewers than the film itself. Two-thirds of exhibition professionals agreed that the “event-like” feel of a screening now outweighs content.

This aligns with findings from the Global Cinema Survey, which revealed that 95% of respondents prefer watching movies in cinemas over streaming platforms, with a notable demand for action/adventure and comedy films.

Our survey also found widespread agreement that the preferences of these audiences will reshape operations. From programming and seating to presentation and policies, cinemas are expected to adapt or risk becoming irrelevant.

A recent Fandango study found that 74% of audiences say Premium Large Formats (e.g. IMAX or Dolby) improve their experience, and themed collectibles such as popcorn buckets are increasingly seen as part of the draw.

Who’s to pay for the cost of the upgrades?

Just over a third of exhibition professionals feel that younger cinema-goers are more price-conscious than their older counterparts. A further third weren’t sure and just under a third didn’t think so.

The average ticket price in the US rose by almost 25% between 2020 and 2024. Price sensitivity is also affected by broader expectations shaped by streaming, gaming, and other forms of digital entertainment where content is abundant and often included in flat-rate subscriptions.

While the fears may be front of mind for exhibition execs, other research suggests it’s not a major problem just yet. A CGF survey of 68,000 people across 15 countries found that 72% of cinema-goers agree or strongly agree that a visit to the cinema is good value for money.

Read more

You can read part one here - The five biggest concerns facing US cinema exhibitors today.

Today’s article looks at how professionals in and around exhibition perceive the state of the industry today. What shape is the recovery taking? How long do insiders believe the theatrical model will last? And which operational or strategic changes are helping cinemas stay afloat?

Among the things we learn today:

• Most cinemas have not fully recovered since COVID.

• Cutting costs and flexible programming proved to be the most effective survival tactics.

• Around half of those who work in exhibition feel that the cinema business has less than 20 years left.

• A strong majority still believe in the value of an exclusive theatrical window.

• Day-and-date remains deeply divisive across different parts of the industry.

The long road to recovery

Five years after the pandemic forced a total shutdown of cinemas, the exhibition sector is still navigating a fragile recovery. Audiences have returned, but not in full force. Last week I covered the international view, showing that cinema admissions in 2024 were down on 2019 in almost every country.

Today’s interviewees all work in the Domestic sector (i.e. US and Canada) which has experienced a 75.4% recovery over the same period, from $11.36bn in 2019 to $8.56bn in 2024.

Only one in eight of exhibition executives we spoke to said that their business had fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels, compared to a third of production execs.

What helped cinemas recover?

We asked them what had helped the most in this recovery, and the answers reveal an interest divide.

For those closest to the coal face (i.e. those actually operating cinemas) the top-ranked adjustment was reducing staffing and operational costs. 57.8% of exhibition executives said this had supported their recovery. Programming changes also performed well, with 46.6% citing flexible scheduling and dynamic calendars as an effective tactic.

Exhibition execs also credited event cinema (more on cinema events here), whereas few of who do not directly operate cinemas were much more likely to credit cinemas offer premium experiences.

This matches a wider pattern I have spotted in the industry, whereby those who interact with real audiences on a regular basis have a better idea of what people actually want. Not a ground breaking thought but it does highlight how disconnected many key roles in the film business can be from real world film consumers.

What is the future of the cinema business?

When asked how long the cinema business has left, we see a split between two camps.

Exhibition exces were the mostly likely to say “More than 20 years” (45.7%) and the most likely to predict “Under five years” (6.0%).

Just under half of those who work in exhibition feel that the business has less than 20 years left to run.

The picture is similarly divided among other sectors. The most pessimistic are those working in sales and distribution, where two-thirds expect the traditional model to last no more than 20 years.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here.

• Firstly, this captures peoples’ points of view and levels of optimism - it’s not an economic study or prediction.

• Secondly, it could be that the “traditional cinema experience” evolves and changes with the times, meaning that the people, companies, and locations survive but in a different form. Next week’s article will touch on how new audiences are changing the nature of cinema going.

The window still matters

If there is one topic that consistently stirs up strong views in exhibition, it is the theatrical window. For years, release windows have been getting shorter and many execs cite this as one of the root causes of the sector’s fragility.

Read more

Five years and (at least) one pandemic later, we have returned to the same crowd to take their temperature and gauge their mood.

We interviewed 246 professionals who work in or supply content directly to the exhibition sector in the US. We quizzed them on a range of topics, and their answers were very revealing.

We’re going to share our findings over four articles:

1. How they feel - Today’s piece sets the tone, looking at the issues which are at the forefront of the minds of those at the front line of cinema exhibition

2. What they predict - Article two will reveal what professionals think about the future viability of theatrical exhibition.

3. What they’ve learned - Article three will address the next generation of cinema audiences, and how the industry may change in the coming decades.

4. What they want - And the final piece will examine what the exhibition sector is demanding of studios and filmmakers.

In today’s piece, I’ve summed up the key concerns exhibitors have, and found some choice quotes so you can hear it in their own words.

Times are tough

From the outside, one might assume that cinema operators would be in good spirits. A Cinema United (formerly National Association of Theatre Owners) survey in December 2024 revealed that 85% of moviegoers planned to attend movies as often or more often in 2025 than they did in 2024.

And while the US box office has not yet fully rebounded to pre-pandemic levels (peaking at $12 billion in 2018), it has made significant progress ($8.6 billion in 2024).

But the first thing which becomes apparent when you listen to exhibitors is that times are tough. The pandemic hit hard, and the recovery hasn’t offered much clarity or comfort.

One exhibitor spells out the challenge:

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain an exhibition business. Most cinemas in my area here in Los Angeles are being advised to pursue a non-profit independent route to survive.

The five most commonly cited complaints from our respondents were:

1. Broken release windows.

2. Content fatigue.

3. The cost of going out.

4. Distribution that doesn’t flex.

5. Disconnect with the audience.

1. Broken release windows

One of the most common complaints was about the shortening of release windows and the increased frequency of ‘day-and-date’ releases.

Streaming is killing theatres. Making a movie and having it stream a month later is just training the audience to wait and get it for ‘free’.

Some point out that release windows are more than just about controlling when people can watch movies. It’s also about ensuring that movies are appreciated as quality experiences worthy of respect.

Theatres are a unique experience and are being killed by streaming and direct access. Single-screen theatres are especially hurting with studio limitations on showings. Going to the movies is an experience that should be protected by giving theatres an exclusive window to encourage patrons to see it on the big screen.

Windows is the single most important thing that is hurting the industry. The studios that hurry film to TVs are slowly eating away at the entire ecosystem.

And the mixed messages that the window change has created:

Bring back the 45-day exclusive window. There is too much confusion with the general public.

Note: this mirrors Cinema United’s recent call for a 45-day minimum window for theatrical.

2. Content fatigue

Another persistent comment centres on what’s on-screen. Too many sequels, too many reboots, not enough variety, not enough creative risks. The same types of films are being made over and over, with very little room for anything new or surprising.

I’m going to dive deeper into this topic in a future article, but for now, here is a flavour of what was said:

We need more original ideas and fewer remakes.

Many implied that this was coming on behalf of their patrons rather than just their own tastes.

Guests want more stories from independent filmmakers that include good marketing, so they are aware of releases. Too much emphasis is placed on major blockbusters.

In addition to the need for better movies, there was a call for a variety of content.

There is a diverse buffet of films for movie theatres being made by filmmakers. The real problem lies in distribution by the studios. They need to distribute films on a 52 week calendar.

Another asked the distributors to:

Release more mid-range films theatrically, as the market cannot survive with just one blockbuster every month. More family product is also needed, again between the larger family releases.

On that note, various types of content were cited as being undersupplied, including:

There seems to be a shortage of romantic comedies. People still want to escape to movies to have a laugh and a good time with relatable experiences.

And:

There is a dearth of comedies that would appeal to either a broad audience or underrepresented audiences.

Several professionals highlight the opportunity to draw in audiences through alternative programming. Ideas include live concerts, sporting events, interactive screenings, and frequent re-releases of classic films or audience favourites. One contributor urges the industry to:

Bring in more alternative content, including live championship sporting events. Markets in college towns should be capable of showing college sporting events such as football and basketball.

3. The cost of going out

Exhibition professionals are the first to admit that the rising cost of going to the cinema is deterring people. Tickets are higher than many audiences can justify. Add in snacks, parking, and the rest, and what used to be a casual outing now feels like a luxury.

Read more

It quickly emerged that there were a few core ideas many people spoke about. I have brought together a collection of their tips and advice.

Here’s the skinny:

1. Start your marketing before your film is finished. Begin building an audience early by sharing the filmmaking process and generating interest well before release.

2. Target niche communities and micro-influencers. Collaborate with smaller, focused influencers who speak directly to your target audience and generate more meaningful engagement.

3. Use social platforms as force multipliers. Engage with audiences on the platforms they already use by posting tailored, authentic content to boost visibility and word of mouth.

4. Create real-world experiences worth sharing. Design immersive or novel physical experiences related to your film that people will want to share online.

5. Give fans tools to spread the word for you. Provide easy-to-share assets and encourage user-generated content to turn your audience into active promoters.

6. Use surprise and mystery to fuel curiosity. Tease elements of your film to provoke speculation and build anticipation without revealing everything upfront.

7. Don’t leave first impressions to chance. Invest in high-quality trailers, posters, and synopses as they play a crucial role in attracting both audiences and industry buyers.

8. Let controversy work for you. If your film sparks debate or outrage, embrace the attention and use it to fuel conversation and visibility.

Now let’s dive into each and I’ve found a few illustrative examples so you can see it in the wild.

1. Start your marketing before your film is finished

Build your audience from day one. Do not wait until the film is done to start promoting. Share behind-the-scenes moments, update progress, and let people in while you make the film. Early audience engagement proves to buyers that there is real demand for your work.

One expert put it simply:

Nowadays word of mouth is no longer about festivals but social media.

Another told me:

Films with an active fan base or growing public interest are much more appealing to sales companies and distributors.

Skinamarink (2022) became a viral sensation after leaked clips circulated during its festival run, drawing over 20 million views on TikTok. The film’s alignment with analog horror and liminal space aesthetics helped fuel online buzz, ultimately securing a theatrical release and grossing around $2 million on a $15,000 budget. Director Kyle Edward Ball shot the film in his childhood home, building on the dreamlike style he developed on his YouTube channel.

Sound of Freedom (2023) leveraged a grassroots marketing strategy centered around its Pay It Forward ticketing initiative. This program enabled supporters to purchase tickets for others, resulting in over 1.8 million tickets sold through the initiative, contributing approximately $26 million to the film's box office revenue. Angel Studios reported that about 84% of these tickets were redeemed by moviegoers .

2. Target niche communities and micro-influencers

Big influencers look expensive and out-of-reach, but collaborating with niche or micro-influencers delivers specific, credible engagement.

Approach people whose followers match your audience: genre fans, regional film lovers, or relevant online communities. Provide them with material or advance access.

A distributor told me:

Smaller influencers often have higher engagement rates within specific communities. Their perceived authenticity and closer connection to their followers can be highly effective for genre films or titles targeting specific cultural or interest groups.

Twisters (2024) activated over 80 influencers across weather, music, and pop culture niches, generating more than 52 million views before release. The campaign blended TikTok trends with film clips and featured the cast appearing at country music events, including a Luke Combs concert, positioning the film squarely within southern pop culture.

Sony’s campaign for Where the Crawdads Sing (2022) targeted BookTok influencers and curated Pinterest boards to reach the book’s core audience (i.e. women already engaged with the story). It also partnered with book clubs by supplying discussion guides and screening invites, building demand well before release.

3. Use social platforms as force multipliers

Find the social platforms your audience already uses and become visible there. Share content tailored for those spaces. Authentic, regular interaction builds a following much faster than one-off posts. TikTok, Instagram, and even Letterboxd can become engines of discovery if you put in the time.

In the words of one person I spoke with:

You don’t need a huge budget if you understand how your audience talks and where they hang out. Social platforms can carry your film further than any billboard.

The marketing team behind Terrifier 2 (2022) spent almost nothing on traditional marketing. Instead, social media and old-fashioned word of mouth (helped along by viral stories of audiences fainting) drove demand. Online horror fans dared each other to see it, and every viral tweet or community post turned into a ticket sold.

Even mega films need to harness social media. For Barbie (2023), Warner Bros. turned every possible social media channel pink. A custom AI selfie generator let users share their faces in “Barbie posters,” pushing the film’s aesthetic across feeds worldwide and turning ordinary people into film promoters.

4. Create real-world experiences worth sharing

Give audiences and media something to talk about in the real world. This can be an interactive event, a clever prop, or an unusual public stunt connected to your film’s core idea.

Audiences share these online because they feel like insiders experiencing something unique.

Give people a story to live, not just watch. When an audience experiences something tangible, they become part of the campaign themselves.

To market The Green Knight (2021), A24 created a tabletop role-playing game and mailed out campaign kits filled with dice, character sheets, and maps. Gaming and fantasy circles buzzed with excitement well before the film’s release.

Read more

• He is one of the most prolific filmmakers of his generation, with more than forty features to his name. He has raised and spent hundreds of millions in production capital, often independently.

• To gamers, he is the man blamed for ruining video game movies. A few weeks ago I showed that his early adaptations drag down the average rating for the entire genre.

• He is the director who challenged film critics to boxing matches after years of bad reviews. You can watch one of the resulting fights here.

• He is the filmmaker who asked the public to crowdfund his film and when the raise didn’t go well, told them to “go fuck themselves”, adding “I have enough money to play golf until I’m dead.”

• And in case it matters, he also holds a PhD in literature.

One this is for certain: Uwe Boll is a survivor. He has worked through changing markets, tax systems, distribution models, union policies, and platform shifts.

As the Cannes Film Marche prepares to open, and as Donald Trump threatens to impose new tariffs on runaway Hollywood productions, Boll is a useful person to listen to. He understands how films are actually financed, how they get sold, and what happens when the system supporting them begins to collapse.

I chatted with Uwe about the future of film, among other things. What follows is almost entirely in his own words. What he has to say is unfiltered, blunt, and at times bleak. It is also one of the clearest accounts I’ve heard of what is happening to the film industry.

Tariffs

I started by asking him about Trump’s latest plan to apply tariffs to Hollywood movies that chose not to shoot in the US.

Oh God. Yeah. He didn’t think it through, right? Because a film isn’t something you can pin a single price on.

When you make a film and the money is gone and you have, instead of the money, the product. Nobody knows what the value is. It can be a total bomb, with a $50 million movie generating just $2 million revenues, or a $50,000 movie, like the Terrifier, can come in with $60 million in revenue.

So the question is how do we put any price point on it?

If you put a 100% tariff on the production costs, then it’s the end of everything.

Hollywood's is the US’s biggest trade surplus. They're making money around the globe, in China, everywhere. If they get counter tariffs, then that would be the end of the Hollywood studios basically.

Think about it, let’s say for every Hollywood movie coming into European cinemas you have to pay 50% of the production cost as a tariff then most of the movies would not get European distribution as it would be too expensive.

Let's say you would have half of the US movies not even coming to Europe anymore. You get all that free spots in the movie theatres and you have way easier distribution for European-made movies.

I think the industry now wants to use this whole turmoil to get basically more and more subsidies instead of trying to make films for a price, what you can recoup in the market.

It's like a total offsetting their own risks on the taxpayers.

Old financing models have gone

This is a shift away from a model of film financing that has supported a run of his early film. In the early 2000s, Boll became known for using a generous German tax loophole which allowed investors to write off 100% of their investment.

This “soft money” effectively replaced traditional box office incentives with a system that privileged production for production’s sake, not market viability.

When I raised the money for my big movies, that was all up to 2005 in Germany where you got a 100% tax loss on it. That was basically the kicker that people invested in movies.

And then when the German government stopped at 2005, it was all over. There was no further private investor willing to invest anything.

The streamers are not paying fairly

With the tax shelter era gone, Boll had to adapt to a market that is now almost hostile to independent risk-taking.

Where once he could finance films through fiscal engineering, he now faces an industry where traditional investors have either disappeared or are what he calls “lifestyle” backers: people willing to lose money for the red carpet rather than genuine profit.

Then only if you have basically too much money, you could say, okay, you know what? I do a film because I wanna be at Cannes on the red carpet. So then it’s a lifestyle investment.

Boll sees the core business of independent filmmaking as fundamentally broken due to the collapse in ancillary markets and the predatory lowball tactics of streaming platforms. I asked him about the need for big name actors to get projects greenlit.

 Yeah, that's a big problem because what the streamers are doing - a lot of them don't have big stars. I think Apple is doing all these things with stars, but when you see Netflix, there are hundreds of shows where before I watched them, I had no clue that this actors exist.

And then they turn into stars because they were in The Rookie, Wednesday, Stranger Things. They were all basically unknown cast, and then they turned into something. So they're building their own brands with their own cheap actors and make them stars.

But as an independent film guy, when you make movies and try to sell it to the streamers or you sell it to distributors, you are totally dead if you don't have names.

And because then to get any attention, you need a name. You cannot just make films with good actors, but nobody really knows them. Then you have a real problem. And that's unfair.

I think the centre of the indie film problem is that you're not getting a fair pay by the streamers against your production costs. The streamers handling license fee deals like 10 cents on the dollar deals, and they don't ask where we should get the other 90% from if there's no more DVD and Blu-ray. There’s basically nothing, besides streaming.

So that's the real question Hollywood has to answer.

People like Ted Sarandos have to pay more fair for independent movies. My Rampage film was on Netflix. 3.8 million hours watched and they paid $75,000 for a year to license it. Is that fair?

Paramount+ paid $150,000 for one year for First Shift. First Shift had no stars so I cannot be totally whiny about it.

But then when it went like 20 weeks in the top 10, I'm not getting more money. You should get more money if you get more and more views. We should get more money if a show on a streamer out performs.

Uwe’s solution to the film financing crisis? Change the way people are paid

Even as the platforms profit off audience engagement, there is no longer any backend or upside for the filmmaker. Investors outside the streamer system, meanwhile, are out of touch or, as Boll puts it, being quietly conned by outdated projections and slick pitch decks:

I get these pitch decks and whatever, like John Travolta is attached and it’s a $15 million budget, and they say you will double your money and they’re sending it to everybody.

But when I read stuff like this, I feel always that’s fraud. Because it’ll not make $15 million. It will maybe not even make $2 million back. And that’s the problem.

The only way to make projects on the level of low budget (or to get them finished at all) is for everyone to essentially work or defer for free:

The only way to make films on a lower budget is for everyone for who is invloved to partly invest their work. And then it’s all about how you distribute the risk to everybody. Like the post-production has to partly invest, get some money, but partly invest. Actors have to go down with their fees and defer some fees. Everybody, the equipment house, must defer fees.

In essence, Boll sees little future or logic in the current business unless you’re either an entrenched streamer, a legacy studio living on subsidy, or a dreamer willing to lose it all for the privilege of the process. He sums up:

I had a line producer on the Zoom recently, and he said, every single show in LA is union because they come and flip you. There are no more independent movies in Los Angeles.

And then they're all whiny that a lot of business went away.

20 years ago you would mix it up - You get a TV show, you get paid properly, then you have an independent movie where you and your buddies get $100 a day.

But all of this is gone now. This indie world doesn't exist there anymore. And now a lot of people, thousands of people just sitting at home like, what can I do? What can I do? What can I do?

And that's the thing. It's the unions who are important, fight the wrong people.

If you are a streamer, a studio, a network, a cable channel production then of course you should follow all the union rules. But if you have a real independent film with private money, you should be left alone by the unions.

Because if you can’t shoot union then the movie can’t exists - that’s the situation we’re in right now.

He didn’t hold back when talking about the recent writers’ strike, either.

I had mixed feelings when that strike happened because when you see in a writer's room, you get $12,000 a week. They were all whiny about this and you feel like you're aware it's $50,000 a month and you are not happy?!

And I think that was the absurd thing, that they came from a very high pedestal. Like it's their birth right to make so much money.

The industry is blind to the problems

Uwe feels as if the studio system continues to act as if nothing has changed.

Hollywood is just in this balloon where the studio executives plus the top producers, directors, and actors think their fees are God-given or something. To keep their lifestyle they need to make between $10 million and $50 million each year. That's their world. So we’re at the Golden Globes, at the Oscars, we go on the red carpet. That's their life. So it's a completely given for them.

And they don't get it, that all of this could crumble away because no-one need a studio system anymore. Like it's because you can make X amount of movies for $3,000.

He pointed to the sheer absurdity of current high-end TV costs, citing a stunning example from inside Hollywood’s prestige TV machine.

Take the great show The Last of Us - they spend $28 million per episode. And you feel like for a TV series you spend can $28 million per episode?!

They are never getting that money back. There will be no DVDs or Blu-rays, no box office, and it's just running through Sky and HBO.

Or take Lionsgate. I cannot really remember a year where Lionsgate actually made a profit. But they’re able to shell out $20 million to $30 million a year to their CEO.

The media industry is like you have a construction company but you don’t live on actual revenues you live on projections and line of credit. They’re living from this idea of the future, and then they’re getting a salary based on their projections not on their real success

If you are the real owner of a company, an entrepreneur, and you make a $300 million loss and then the next year $100 million, everybody in the movie industry would say ‘Yay, only a $100 million loss!’.

You have so many companies like this. They’re not cashflow positive in any way. They’re living on loans.

The AI revolution will change everything

Boll is convinced that the coming wave of AI tools will fundamentally erase whole categories of film work, and he predicts this revolution is arriving much faster than most in the industry are willing to admit.

What once required vast crews, expensive equipment, and weeks of post-production, he believes, will soon be automated and instantaneous.

My prediction is in two years you will have, you can put a script into an AI system and to get the movie out. That's what I think is in two years already happening and maybe in three or four years, it's absolutely, made in such a way that you cannot see that it's AI at all.

In a way you create your own stars. You can do the same kind of, you build your own Tom Cruise, but it's completely AI and you put him in good movies and you build him up that people actually want to pay for this guy.

Right now you still shoot movies, but thanks to digital and AI technologies, you need fewer and fewer crew to shoot movies. You don’t need actors for voices, ADR, dubbing - all of this can now be done if you push a button.

He predicts that explosions, car crashes, dangerous stunts (all the traditional centrepieces of costly action movies) will be created by algorithms, not expensive film crews.

All the ‘money shots’ will be AI. For example, the film with Armie Hammer Citizen Vigilante which is now in post-production, he almost drives into a car, the car gets away, flips over. We did that for real with the stunt team, but I assume that in two years we can do stuff like this completely with AI.

Soon you will just show the guy shooting the bazooka, but you never need to actually shoot an explosion with people flying through the air or a building collapsing. You just do that later with AI and it costs them almost nothing.

So how can indie filmmakers finance their productions?

Boll doesn't see many options left. The days of German tax shelters and DVD sales are gone. Streaming pays a fraction of what physical media once did, and crowdfunding has failed him too. He tried raising money for Postal 2 but couldn’t mobilise enough fans:

I looked into why nobody invest in Postal 2, because it would have a lot of fans, but I couldn’t reach them with the crowdfunding.

It’s a lot of work with crowdfunding to get anybody excited. You have to push and push and have the social media like working for you like crazy.

For most people, he believes, it comes down to self-funding or treating film as a passion project. The idea of a sustainable career in indie filmmaking is disappearing. Without subsidies or soft money, few projects get made.

I’m just lucky that I made so many movies and that my library creates money. I made 40 movies with Oscar-winning stars like Sir Ben Kingsley and action stars like Jason Statham, so that creates me money and with that money I can shoot movies.

Of course, that’s the only reason I continue. Film is my passion. I don’t need a Lamborghini or whatever, but I can spend a million bucks on First Shift.

I’m in film because I love making movies. I don’t play golf. I don’t need a yacht. I don’t do private jets - I flight coach. So that’s the thing. I feel okay, that’s my business. And if there are no more investors and the library creates revenues, I use that money to make more movies.

Bonus - The Uwe Boll that hasn’t yet been made

Before we finished, I asked Uwe if there was a video game franchise he’d love to make into a movie. He was quick to answer and spoke with enthusiasm about the prospect.

Grand Theft Auto.

I have the humour. I'm used to the violence. Postal showed that I know where they're coming from and that would be perfect.

The worst Grand Theft Auto film would be a studio PG 13. That would be the biggest mistake they could ever ever do.

They need like a harsh, R-rated, violent kind of political incorrect comedy. Right now I think the hardest humour comes from stand-ups and the movies are scared to do real brutal, honest, funny stuff. A totally unwoke movie.

I'm very curious how the Naked Gun turns out with Liam Neeson. It would be very interesting to see how far are they willing to go with the reboot. The thing is, the raunchy stuff like The Hangover and American Pie are kind of films where now everybody is even too scared to do.

They were, for me, very important because this is then adult entertainment, where as an adult you think it's funny. Now what's out there is more a kids entertainment. When I watch Jumanji with my kid or whatever, I think they're good movies, they're funny, but it's not what I grew up with. I used to watch Kentucky Fried Movie and Airplane. I want those movies back.

Epilogue

I’m very grateful to Uwe for his time, his thoughts, and for not challenging me to a fight.

Cannes Confidential

6.61MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The Raindance Guide to Navigating the Cannes Film Festival and Marché du Film

Download

The Cannes Film Festival and market are the highlights of the film calendar each year, with an epic number of events, screenings, parties and meetings crammed into a little French town over the course of eleven days.  To give Cannes first-timers a few pointers, over the past few years, I have contacted a large number of Cannes Film Festival veterans.

In the end, 575 film professionals gave their advice, with a combined experience of 4,478 trips to the Cannes film festival.  In addition, I ran a few research projects to look at what the data and statistics can tell us about how to do Cannes right.

I'm grateful to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts, advice and tips.

Tip #1: Be there over the first weekend

I asked my respondents when they were planning to attend, and the results showed that the first weekend is the busiest.

It seems that over 80% of those attending the festival at any point will be there on the first Sunday. This is a pattern which repeats every year.

Tip #2: Buyers prefer the first few days

A major reason professionals attend the Cannes market is to sell distribution rights for their film(s).  These rights are bought by a small number of attendees who have the official 'Buyer' classifications, usually illustrated via a purple stripe on their market pass.

As time in Cannes is short, producers and sales agents do all they can to reach buyers.

And the data suggests that one thing they can do is ensure that they're attending right from the opening of the market at 9am on the first day, when the ratio of buyers to attendees is at its most favourable.

Tip #3: Financiers arrive later

By contrast, those primarily going to the Cannes film festival to find projects to finance tend to arrive later.  The most favourable financier-to-attendee ratios are to be found on the three days after the first weekend.

Tip #4: Learn the lingo

Spend some time ahead of your trip getting familiar with some of the terms people use in Cannes conversations. Here are a few to get you started:

• The Palais - Short for Palais des Festivals, this is the main venue where the official screenings and red carpets happen.

• The Marché - The film market, short for Marché du Film. It’s where deals are made and meetings happen. Most industry folk spend more time here than at the premieres.

• Badges - Your badge tells people who you are and what level of access you have. Colour matters. Some doors open only for certain colours.

• Quinzaine – Short for Directors’ Fortnight, an independent section that runs alongside the official selection. Cool films, emerging directors, and a more relaxed vibe.

• La Plage - Literally "the beach", but often used to refer to specific branded beach venues (e.g., Plage des Palmes, or the UK Film Centre beach). A meeting “on the beach” might not involve sunbathing.

• Terrasse meetings - Catching up at one of the cafes with a view of the sea. Often informal, always strategic.

• Bumper - A short animated sponsor sequence shown before a film. Industry folk may complain about “too many bumpers” before a screening.

• Raclette - Not the cheese. It’s the name of the badge scanner used to check your access before a screening. “I got raclette’d” = denied entry.

• The List - Some parties, events, or dinners need you to be “on the list”. And even then, it’s no guarantee.

• Yachting - Yes, people really do take meetings on boats. Don’t be surprised if your 3pm is “aboard.”

Tip #5: Filmmakers have fun, Distributors don't

By examining the sentiment of respondents' comments, I can examine how various sectors of the film industry feel about the festival.

Filmmakers have the best things to say about Cannes, with almost three-quarters providing only positive feedback.  By contrast, half of those working in distribution said positive things, while the other half were entirely negative.

Tip #6: Expect the unexpected

Here are some of the ways my respondents summed up the Cannes film festival...

• A maelstrom of sleep-deprived business.

• Hysterical, overrated, unfriendly environment.

• The single greatest networking event on the planet.

• The world championship for collective humiliation.

• Digging through a skip of muck trying to find a diamond ring.

• Alcohol, vapid film chat, alcohol, loads of business cards, surreal experiences.

• Stressful, fun, exhausting, lots of late nights, lots of time wasters and deluded indie film types.

• Over 100 scheduled meetings, a couple of hundred brief encounters, lots of preparations of lots of homework to do after.

Some descriptions of the Cannes film festival were rather more poetic...

I always describe Cannes as 10 days of Friday nights and Monday mornings.

You rarely get to bed before midnight/1am but still have to be up and at 'em at 8am the next morning.

Days are spent running up and down the croisette multiple times, meeting with sales agents, devouring the trades, queuing for screenings, watching a plethora of either barely watchable films or films you love but 'aren't commercial enough', elbowing your way into the Palais, arguing with officials, dodging tourists and all the while hoping you're going to find that one gem that will make the mad expense of attending the festival worthwhile.

Days generally end with a glass of Rose on the beach comparing notes with colleagues as the sun goes down. In a nutshell - the busy, boozy, sleep-deprived business of film.

Tip #7: Planning precedes parties

There are three sides to Cannes - the screenings, the business and the parties.  Although they each have their own ecosystems, they all require careful planning and preparation.  

In recent years, Telegram groups and WhatsApp threads have overtaken public listings, making access even more dependent on who you know. Some party invites are distributed through Cinando or Eventbrite, while others are shared via PDFs passed quietly among attendees. If you're lucky, your national film body or sales agent might have a list. If not, keep your ear to the ground and befriend someone who does.

Most of the big events are private and require invitations, but a surprising number are technically open – if you know the time, the venue and what to say at the door. Many parties don’t advertise a guest list but still turn people away if they don’t look the part or arrive too late. Lines can stretch down the Croisette, especially in the first weekend when demand is highest.

Venues vary widely – rooftop bars, beach clubs, hotel terraces, private villas and yachts. Some hosts throw invite-only dinners, followed by open dance floors later in the evening. Others keep it tight all night. Knowing when to show up (often early to network, later to drink) is part of the game.

The more effort you put into planning and networking in advance, the more likely you’ll avoid the classic rookie mistake: standing outside a party you heard about five minutes ago, in the wrong shoes, with no name on the list.

Tip #8: Learn the art of the blag

Naturally, the more popular a party is, the harder it will be to get invited.  So what can you do if you're without a ticket but want to get it in?  Here are some tips from my own experience and from my respondents...

• Ask. The first port of call should be to politely approach the hosting organisation and ask if they have any tickets available.  Nine times out of ten you'll be turned away, but it's worth the few minutes it'll take.

• Network.  Talking to people around the festival can tip you off to which parties are upcoming and sometimes it can lead to actual invites.  If you manage to befriend someone higher on the pecking order then the tickets they want to offload could be the very ones you're keen to get into.

• Make yourself appear attractive / valuable / important to the hosts.  Hosting a party in Cannes is not cheap and the hosting organisation won't want to waste tickets on people they don't see as valuable to their aims.  So, if you're after a ticket to the party of a national film commission then consider approaching the commission earlier in the festival with lots of questions about shooting in their country.

• Use LinkedIn & Cinando.  By identifying key people within the hosting organisation you can target your networking efforts on the people most likely to get you tickets.

• Dress to the nines and walk up to the door.  In my early years at Cannes I was always amazed just how far a tux will get you, if you act like you lost your ticket.  If you can affect an air of entitlement and self-importance then all the better.  As one of my respondents put it... "The French still have class systems ingrained in their culture so act and look like you belong".

• Bribe bouncers. This is news to me but enough of my respondents mentioned it so I feel I should add it to this list.

• Shamelessly lie, blag and beg. If you have nothing to lose and a strong constitution, you could try something more deceitful.  Obviously I disapprove of all of these, but here are some things I've heard others do...

  • Use the name of a journalist or reviewer. They are usually on the list, but they are too busy to attend during the first weekend. (Remember to hide your festival badge!)

  • Pretend you're on live TV.  Dress smart, hold a microphone with the logo of a well known press organisation, narrate what you're doing to some unseen camera in the middle distance and walk confidently into the event.  If you're stopped, act embarrassed and handle it the way a journalist on live TV would.

  • Dress like a waiter and look for a back entrance.

  • Search EventBrite. Some organisations use events site EventBrite to handle their RSVPs.  Have a search and see if you can RSVP to events you weren't invited too.

I feel it incumbent on me to point out that no matter how good you are at blagging, the majority of times you try to enter an event without a ticket will end in disappointment.  Being found out and / or turned away can feel pretty crappy and doesn't make you look too good to those nearby.  That said, it's an important part of the Cannes experience and so if it's your first time at the Cannes film festival then you should try it at least a couple of times.

Tip #9: Network, network, network

One of the best things about the festival is that it brings together film professionals from all over the world.  For just over a week, almost anyone who's anyone in film is hanging out in the same buildings.  A few quick and dirty networking tips...

• Business cards are still a must – but they’ve evolved. Keep a stash of physical cards with some white space (non-glossy) so people can jot down where they met you or what you discussed. At the same time, be ready for digital swaps: QR codes, LinkedIn links, or digital business card apps like HiHello and Blinq are becoming common, especially among younger attendees. The smartest networkers offer both – handing over a physical card while saying “scan me here too.”

• Talk to anyone and everyone.  this includes when you're in queues, sharing tables or just standing next to each other for a moment.  You never know which relationships will be useful or enjoyable.

• Keep it brief.  It's much better to meet six people for ten minutes apiece than to spend an hour talking to one person.  You want to expand your network and they will also want to keep working the room.

• Keep meeting new people.  If you're there for more than a few days there will be a temptation to spend the second half of your trip with the people you met in the first half.  Resist this and seek to keep expanding your circle.

• Follow up.  After the festival, email everyone you've met and try to extend and expand the brief meeting into an ongoing connection.

One of the legendary Cannes film festival hangouts is the Petit Majestic - a place that defies explanation and logic.  It's a backstreet in Cannes which has dirty plastic white chairs and tables and is crowded and loud all night.  Sounds appalling, right?  Despite this inauspicious description it's a vital part of the Cannes grapevine.  It's where people go before they head off to their events, it's where they return to once they event is over (or if they got turned away) and it's where people go when no other place will have them.

Many first-timers hear about the Petit Majestic but fail to find it (or worse, find it once and never again).  So here's the address: Bar Majestic, 6 Rue Tony Allard, 06400 Cannes, although it's probably easier to just remember that it's 'behind The Grand'.

Tip #10: Set up your meetings in advance

The popular press may portray the Cannes film festival as a place where everyone is at film screenings but the truth is slightly more mundane. When I asked my respondents what Cannes meant to them, networking and meeting people ranked higher than watching films.

Cannes meetings are often short (typically under 20 minutes), frantic and more about meeting people than negotiating the finer points of complicated deals.  There will be time after Cannes to discuss the smallprint so during the festival it's more about getting to know each other.

Many meetings are arranged in advance, and the busiest folk will have their diaries fully booked before the festival even opens.

Below is a word cloud showing the words used by my respondents when asked what the Cannes film festival meant to them (the most frequently used words appear the largest).

Tip #11: Visit all the pavilions, not just your native one

The International Village is a long line of tents and pavilions along the beach, most representing national film commissions of countries around the world. They provide support for native filmmakers and advice for foreigners considering filming in their country.  Almost all the pavilions are open to Cannes film festival attendees, so it pays to have a look around the International Village early in your trip to get your bearings.

British attendees are notorious for spending their entire trip inside the UK tent with other Brits who work in the same postcode as each other. As one respondent put it...

Skip the UK Film area as the English in particular are a rather insular bunch

The one exception to the open-pavilion rule is the American Pavilion which charges between $150 and $900 for access, depending on which benefits you want to pay for.  39% of the people who bought AmPav membership in 2014 have an annual income over $200,000 (and interestingly only 57% were American).

Tip #12: Wear comfortable shoes (but not at night)

You'll be walking around a lot, so if you're not wearing something comfortable then it won't take long for your feet to start to ache.  The dress code during the day in Cannes is quite relaxed, with everyone acknowledging that it's hot, tiring and you have meetings all day.  As the sun sets and the parties begin, the dress code changes.  Comfort is out and glamour is in.

Last year the press gleefully reported that women were being turned away from red carpet screenings for wearing flat shoes.  The festival later denied that this happened, but it's certainly true to say that guests at the 7pm and 10pm festival screenings are expected to be in their finest.  The official guidance says...

Black tie/evening dress is required for gala screenings. For all other screenings appropriate smart dress is sufficient.

Tip #13: Be smart about where you stay

The town of Cannes is a pretty small place, with a permanent population of around 74,000 people.  The festival draws so many people that the population almost triples to a peak of 210,000 people.  Interestingly, only 32,000 are accredited attendees and 5,000 are accredited journalists, meaning that over 100,000 of the people in Cannes during the festival are waiters, security guards, tourists, pickpockets and hookers.

This inevitably puts a strain on the accommodation options, which leads to exorbitant rates.  The best places are snatched up pretty early and a number of my respondents said they booked as much as six months ahead.

• Airbnb. A huge number of festival attendees use Airbnb to connect with locals who are letting out their homes (despite the French authorities fining French tenants for doing just this).  The apartment I'm staying in this year is costing me just over three and a half times the pre-festival cost. (If a listing looks reasonably-priced then check with the lister whether that price actually applies for the festival dates).

• Hotels. A room in The Grand will set you back €980 per night during the festival (the same room a week earlier is half the price).  Likewise, staying in a standard room at The Majestic during the festival currently costs €815 per night, whereas in the week before the festival it's just €205 per night.  This is for a number of reasons; high demand, the sheer number of more-money-than-sense festival attendees and because some sales agents hire hotel rooms instead of having a stand in the Marche.

• Staying out of town.  Prices are much more reasonable in hotels and apartments in neighboring towns such as Cannes la Bocca, Antibes, St. Raphael or Juan-les-Pins.  The French rail service is impressive (by British standards) so have a look at towns that are one or two stops away from the Cannes line.  Be careful if you're a nightowl as you may be forced to either get an expensive taxi or wait for the trains to start again in the morning.

• Camping. It's not very glamourous but there are a number of campsites near to Cannes and they start from as little as €20 per night.

• Boat.  If you're super rich then you may wish to consider hiring a yacht (or taking one of your own), either mooring it on the Cannes marina or in the bay.

Tip #14: Travel to match your budget

During the day, the vast majority of travel is achieved on foot as the Palais, cinemas, hotels and pavilions are all close by.  The nightlife is a little more spread out, meaning you may need to use a taxi or one of the hotel shuttle buses. Traveling to and from Cannes, however, takes a little bit more planning.

• Planes. Most people fly into Nice airport, although there is a private airport in Cannes itself.  The full list of carriers which fly to Nice are... British Airways, Jet2, Danish Air Transport, easyJet, Monarch, Air France, Iberia, Luxair, KLM, Norwegian, Blue Air, Lufthansa, Aer Lingus, germanwings, Flybe, TAP Portugal, LOT, Vueling Airlines, Austrian Airlines, Finnair, Swiss, SAS, Tunisair, Brussels Airlines, Alitalia and Primera Air.  Traveling from Nice airport to Cannes can be achieved via...

  • Taxi. There is a taxi rank outside the airport. It's best to split the fare with other Cannes-bound folk, as the trip will cost around €70.

  • Bus. The number 200 bus to Antibes stops in Cannes, leaves every 15 minutes and costs just a few Euros.  It does take a few hours, but it is the cheapest method.

  • Train. The coastal trains travel along the Riviera with beautiful views.  The train station you need is called Nice St Augustin and is a 13 minute walk from the airport..

• Trains. The SNCF train takes five hours from Paris and drops you in the heart of Cannes.  A one way ticket from Paris to Cannes currently costs between £57 and £87.

• Automobiles. Driving in Cannes is extremely hard as the streets are small and narrow, the traffic is always heavy and there is little to no parking.  You could look to rent an apartment with a parking space, although this will only add to the already exorbitant accommodation cost.

Tip #15: Prepare to get sunburnt...

One of the nicest things about Cannes is that it takes place in the early summer in the south of France.  As a result, it's not uncommon for people to get sunburn just running between meetings.

The average temperature during the Cannes film festival over the past decade was 17.7ºC (63.8ºF).

Tip #16: ...but also plan for rain

Over the past ten years, it has rained on 29% of festival days.  The worst year of the past decade was 2012, which the Hollywood Reporter described as having a “London feel” due to the “rain, thunder and howling winds”.

Tip #17: Watch out for thieves

With so many people dressing to impress, it's no wonder that the festival is a popular target for thieves. Criminals range from everyday pickpockets right up to organised jewel thieves.

During the 2013 Cannes film festival, thieves stole £650,000 worth of jewels and just five days later a £1.6 million necklace was also pinched.   A few months later, an armed robber got away with £89 million worth of gemstones from a Cannes hotel (the same hotel featured in Alfred Hitchcock's 1955 film To Catch a Thief).

Tip #18: If it's your first time, then try to experience it all

Your first Cannes trip will be the most surprising, exciting, confusing and overwhelming of all your trips to Cannes.  Hopefully, the first time you go, you're there to get the lay of the land (rather than trying to sell your project on your first trip), so use this chance to experience all that Cannes has to offer.  Here are a list of things I think everyone should try to do in order to have the full Cannes film festival experience...

• Go to a festival screening, ideally a red carpet gala.  This takes planning, perhaps trading favours for tickets and dressing up to the nines.

• Walk the halls of the marche.  See how films are really sold (and try not to get too depressed).

• Spend some late night / early morning hours at the Petit Majestic.

• Lounge in the courtyard of The Grand, watching the world go by.

• Walk the entire length of the Croisette to get your bearings.  Try going further along, westward to sample the quiet beaches.

• Talk your way into a party you weren't invited to

Tip #19: Ask advice from Cannes film festival veterans

A common bit of advice was to chat to people who have gone before.  This starts way before you get on the plane as preparation is key to get the most out of the Cannes film festival.

Thank you to everyone who shared their views with me over the past few months for this article.  If you spot something wrong or missing then please do drop me a line or add a note in the comments below.

See you on the Croisette!

Epilogue

Occasionally, the quixotic way the film industry functions brings up strange questions.  For example, in the research above, I referred to the people who provide finance for films.  There are two possible words for these people - financers or financiers.  If we are to be pedantic (and what else would we be on a blog like this?!) then the subtle difference between the definitions matter.

According to Grammarist.com...

A financer is someone who provides money for a particular undertaking. A financier is a person or organization whose business is providing, investing, or lending money. In other words, a financier makes a habit of financing, while a financer might do it only once or occasionally.

When we apply these definitions to the film industry then we have a grammatical stalemate.  I would say that the vast majority of people who provide money for films would see themselves as financiers but after having invested and not made their money back they would be better described as financers.

So should I use the expectations these people hold, or the expected reality that is likely to occur?

I decided to be generous and use financier, due to the fact they have not yet lost their money.  It's Schrodingers Cash, in that the money is both 'invested' and 'wasted' until you check the recoupment paperwork, at which point it's most certainly 'wasted'.

Many people follow a similar path from wannabe rookie filmmaker through to active filmmaker and, hopefully, to film professional.

They reach the same milestones, face the same roadblocks, and complete the same rites of passage. So it’s natural that there will be a batch of evergreen questions that filmmakers often ask.

Today’s article is an offshoot of a new report I have just launched entitled Engage Filmmakers. It is a little different from my usual film data projects, in that it’s aimed at businesses, but it was during the research process that I studied the most common questions filmmakers ask.

I crunched the data on ten years of posts on filmmaking Subreddits, identifying when filmmakers were asking for help or advice. This gave me just over 160,000 questions to analyse, thereby tracking common points of pain on the path to filmmaking glory.

Today’s article is sponsored by… me! I’m looking to connect with businesses that sell to filmmakers, in order to help them write popular online content.

Engage Filmmakers is a new B2B report focused on helping companies that want to connect with filmmakers. That might be to sell products/ services, to support them or just to collaborate. It’s based on a huge dataset (over 1.5 million articles and posts) and is all about how to earn trust and attention from filmmakers through the content you create. Find out more at EngageFilmmakers.com

Let’s first go through the major topics filmmakers discuss, and then end with the ten most frequently asked questions.

All the gear and no idea

A major topic was asking for advice on what equipment to buy or rent. Filmmakers are always looking for reliable ways to achieve professional results on a limited budget, and guidance on how to avoid wasting money or time.

The most frequently asked type of gear was camera kit, followed closely by post-production software and audio gear.

• Camera selection is central. Requests for advice focus on whether a budget mirrorless or mid-tier DSLR will work for both shorts and paid jobs. Many users seek validation that current entry-level models from Sony, Canon, Blackmagic or Panasonic will hold up for festival projection or 4K and 6K delivery.

• Lighting decisions follow similar logic. Many filmmakers seek affordable alternatives to established brands and want proof these can deliver consistent colour, throw, and reliability over a shoot. Power, portability and efficiency are common questions. Problems such as flicker or colour shifts with cheaper equipment arise repeatedly.

• Filmmakers rarely rely on built-in camera microphones, meaning that questions about audio gear come up a lot. Most start with a low-cost shotgun or lavalier but encounter new problems as projects get more complex. Recording multiple speakers, syncing audio from recorders, and avoiding noise or sync loss enter the list as typical issues.

• Stabilisation and movement tech has changed a lot over the years, as have the questions. Entry-level gimbals, sliders and home-built rigs now receive frequent requests for best-value options. The concern is whether one device can deliver useable footage with limited staff or support. Setup speed and camera compatibility are buying triggers.

• Workflow support tools are another source of frequent questions. Filmmakers want help with safe and fast field backup, media management, and portable power. The questions are less about spec sheets and more about field-tested reliability.

You alright, hun?

Questions around mental health spark the greatest number of comments.

Filmmakers talk about stress, anxiety, burnout, self-doubt, impostor syndrome and the constant pressure to keep going in the face of unstable or underpaid work.

Frequent topics include:

• Exhaustion, working hours and the expectation that suffering is a badge of honour. The frequent de-glamourising of being a film worker, such as mentioning working 16 hours a day or pushing on through fatigue.

• The question “Should I just give up?” appears repeatedly, almost as a standard milestone along the filmmaker’s journey. Even among those who describe themselves as established or “objectively successful,” uncertainty around satisfaction and fulfilment is common.

• Filmmakers talk about losing passion as much as they do about finding it. Searches for advice on coping with failure, critical feedback and the demands of the job appear at every stage of experience, from first-year students to long-time professionals.

• Sexual harassment, gender bias and safety concerns also form a significant part of filmmakers’ mental health discussions. Women and those from marginalised groups ask for tactics, resources or peer support for difficult situations, and worry about being taken seriously or blacklisted if they speak up.

• COVID-19, financial instability and the inconsistency of freelance work remain major sources of anxiety. People talk about “wasting time” or sacrificing personal relationships for film.

• Imposter syndrome rears its nasty head a lot via questions such as “Do I have what it takes?”, and “Am I too old to start?”. Related topics include perfectionism, rejection, creative paralysis, self-worth, creative block, and comparison with peers.

• Filmmakers often request tips or practical strategies to manage stress, avoid burnout or rekindle lost enthusiasm.

It’s business time

Legal rights, payments, and deals are evergreen topics.

These business questions are focused on staying out of trouble, getting paid on time, and structuring deals in ways that are clear, simple, and fair. They need practical guidance that cuts through industry folklore and vague assurances from “industry insiders.”

• Copyright is a constant source of confusion. People want clear answers on whether background book spines or posters need clearing, at what point a music cue will cause trouble, and who can sign a release form if the person can’t read or write English

• The second core concern is deal structure and paperwork. Indie filmmakers want contract templates and deal memos for nearly every scenario, including consulting, crew working for points, granting someone an executive producer credit in exchange for a favour, or “backend” definitions.

• No matter the budget, filmmakers want to know exactly what they have the right to do with their film. They don’t know what’s allowed, what is risky, what needs permission, and how to stay protected from future claims.

• They are wary of producers who claim they can “get backend deals…whatever that means” and want straightforward explanations of what’s standard, what’s not, and what is enforceable.

• Financing and revenue are persistent open questions. Filmmakers want to know how peers really got their first feature made - Was it private equity, a government grant, or product placement? Did their crowdfunding really succeed, and if so, why?

Set for life

Set life is of interest to filmmakers at every level. Most questions and pain points revolve around how to run an efficient shoot, work within the limits of budget and experience, and handle real-world scenarios that rarely appear in textbooks.

• “What does a ‘real’ set look and feel like?”. Rookie filmmakers are obsessed with the gap between student, indie and professional sets. The most common requests ask about basic etiquette, crew roles, safety practices and workflow. Even questions about “what to wear” reveal anxiety about fitting in and working professionally.

• Logistics and survival. Weather, food, transport, and long hours are frequent stress points. Many seek advice on filming in extreme cold, keeping actors comfortable, handling toilets (or the lack of them), and preventing heatstroke or exhaustion. Filmmakers want blunt advice – how do professionals really feed and protect people over 12-hour days? Advice about craft services, portable power, and safety gear gets as much engagement as traditional craft tips.

• Scheduling, mistakes and speed bumps. Every budget scale throws up questions about scheduling. Filmmakers regularly underestimate how long shots, setups, or days actually take. Common posts include “is one month enough for post on a 15-minute short?” and “why does editing take weeks?” or “how do I keep the crew from getting bored waiting?” The pain of missed shots, going over time, or finding errors in the edit crops up daily.

• Location and resource hacks. Independent filmmakers are hungry for practical workarounds. Securing locations, props and extras is a constant concern. They want to know how the professionals secure military radios, find empty hospitals for a shoot, or avoid angry residents during a night shoot. Many look for “free” filming locations, set-building shortcuts, or ways to fake bigger scale with almost no money. Filmmakers at all budget levels want to know how to clear public spaces, book or disguise vehicles, or dress up mundane spaces.

• Crew, authority and “doing it all yourself”. Tension around crew management appears across experience levels. Directors and producers want to know how to handle actors who miss marks or crew with gaps in skills, when to “fire” someone and how to do it, and what to do with overzealous or toxic personalities. Assembling a basic but functional team is a top concern, but so is the question “should I just do it all myself?” Many ask how much is expected of each core crew member, what can be combined, and whether it is sustainable to cover multiple production roles alone. First-timers also ask for advice on giving up micro-managing, or about when to delegate and bring in professionals.

What happens after you’ve shot yourself?

Filmmakers have countless questions around film festivals, including entry fees, premiere requirements, festival quality, practical issues, and the true value of festivals for career progression.

• There is lots of questions on the “top tier” festivals (i.e. Cannes, Sundance, Berlin, Venice, Toronto, SXSW, Tribeca).

• Any discussion about festivals quickly moves to the importance of premiere status, whether the festival is “worth it,” and if a particular event really helps a film break out.

• Many want clear criteria: what separates a respected festival from a scam, and how much getting into a mid-level or B-tier event actually matters to buyers or the industry.

• Entry fees and ROI Submission and entry fees are a pain point. There is intensive crowd-sourcing of lists for free and low-cost festivals that are not scams or “laurel mills.” Filmmakers trade stories about being invited only to festivals that “just want your money.”

• For those who clear the first hurdle, the next wave of questions is practical: What happens once the film is selected? Should you attend? What can you do to get more from the experience than a single screening and a laurel? Does attending actually help with networking or sales, and how do you find out who else will be there?

A related topic is that of distribution, beyond festivals.

• Given its importance to building a sustainable career, and/or returning investors’ money, I personally believe the topic of distribution massively under-indexes in both frequency and intensity. In short, not enough people ask about distribution, and when they do, not enough people respond.

• Given the nature of the audience, it makes sense that self-distribution is a hot topic. Skipping festivals is discussed often, with some filmmakers seeing little value in waiting a year for the festival circuit and therefore asking if they should go straight to YouTube, Amazon, or Vimeo On Demand.

• There is frequent debate over the best/worst aggregators, streaming platforms, traditional channels, exhibitors, and specialist distributors.

• And then there are the hands-on questions about DCPs, formats, screeners, and licensing.

The greatest hits

The most commonly asked questions offer a direct window into what filmmakers want, worry about, and work through on a daily basis.

A small number of question types account for a large share of all queries. This pattern reflects the Pareto Principle, where a minority of causes drives the majority of outcomes.

These ten questions account for 52% of the filmmaking questions I tracked on Reddit.

Below are the ten most frequently asked questions and what they tell us about filmmakers' priorities.

1. What camera and gear should I buy for filmmaking on my budget?

   The search for the “right” camera and kit never ends, no matter how much technology shifts. People want to know what will give them industry-standard results without breaking the bank. The conversation includes price brackets, compatibility, and whether brand or model really matters to a film’s success.

2. How do I start a career in film or get my foot in the door?

   This is the practical follow-up to the film school debate. Filmmakers want straight answers about first jobs, entry points, and which cities or skills lead to real work. Many people are looking for pathways that do not depend on family connections or luck.

3. Is film school worth it or do I need to go to film school to work in the industry?
   Filmmakers want clarity on the value of a formal degree versus real-world experience. They are trying to weigh debt against opportunity and want to know if there are shortcuts, hidden costs, or alternative routes into the business.

4. Which editing software should I use?
   Software choice raises both budget and workflow issues. Filmmakers want to know which tools are worth learning for professional growth. Questions focus on cost, features, compatibility, and what is expected in professional settings.

5. How do I find cast, crew, or collaborators for my film?
   Building a team is a constant sticking point. Most low-budget filmmakers do not have a professional network and are looking for reputable ways to meet actors, crew, or creative partners. Trust and reliability are major concerns, as is the need for effective group communication.

6. What is the legal, rights, permits, and music aspect of filmmaking?
   Legal uncertainty is widespread. Filmmakers are confused about permissions, copyright, insurance, and protecting their work and collaborators. They want step-by-step advice that demystifies the paperwork.

7. How do I improve as a filmmaker, cinematographer, editor, writer, director, etc?

   Self-development is a constant thread. Filmmakers search for the best courses, books, tutorials, and case studies. Clear recommendations are valued and people want to know what separates average work from great films.

8. Is my gear, equipment, location, or crew good enough for filmmaking?
   Questions about minimum standards reflect deeper anxieties about competing in a crowded field. People want reassurance that their toolkit will not hold them back and want to know how far they can push limited resources.

9. How do I submit my film to festivals, distribute it, or what happens after my film is done?

   People want clear instructions on taking their finished work to the next level. Festival strategies, navigating submissions, and understanding distribution channels are a minefield. Filmmakers want to know how to maximise exposure and what steps make the biggest difference.

10. How do I get feedback or critique on my work?
    Constructive criticism is in high demand. Filmmakers want practical advice on scripts, edits, and showreels. They look for honest reactions to their work and advice on how to keep improving.

If you want to go deeper on these topics for your business, then check out my Engage Filmmakers report.

To explore practical solutions, I spoke to 327 experienced industry professionals. I asked them exactly what step they would take first if they had to begin their filmmaking careers again, entirely from scratch.

Below are the eight most consistent pieces of advice they shared.

1. Build your own network(s). Proactively create meaningful connections and form your own professional community, rather than waiting to break into existing circles.

2. Know who your audience is. Clearly defining your core audience from the start gives investors, distributors and audiences confidence in your projects.

3. Embrace the business of film, not just the creative. Filmmakers comfortable with budgets, funding and market realities build sustainable careers far more easily.

4. Test your films with real audiences. Frequent, objective feedback from unbiased viewers sharpens your storytelling and helps you avoid costly mistakes.

5. Learn how funding works. Navigating film funding clearly, efficiently and realistically greatly improves your chance of securing financial support.

6. Embrace audience-building from the start. Start building and maintaining your audience early in production to give distributors and investors greater confidence in your projects.

7. The industry changing - you should too. Stay curious and responsive to technological shifts, new distribution models and market trends like the rise of AI tools.

8. Brand yourself. Clearly communicating a consistent filmmaker identity helps industry decision-makers quickly understand and trust your work.

Let’s go through them in more detail:

1. Build your own network(s)

New filmmakers often talk about "breaking into the industry" as if it's about gaining entrance to an exclusive club.

In reality, careers thrive when filmmakers create supportive groups around themselves and form meaningful communities together. The film industry runs strongly on relationships and trust. People want collaborators they already know and trust personally.

Do not think of networking as pushing into someone else's circle. Instead, start now to build your own connections. Find peers with similar taste or ambitions and support one another.

Over time, these early connections become the foundation of your career.

2. Learn who your audience is

Understanding and articulating who your films serve affects how successfully you reach distributors, investors, and audiences. When decision-makers read pitches or watch early cuts, they immediately ask themselves who would pay to see this film. If you clearly identify and understand that viewer early, your project feels less risky to everyone involved.

Define the core audience clearly and specifically from the start. Think carefully about the size, needs, tastes, and expectations of your audience.

Choose projects and genres which naturally connect with existing groups of engaged viewers.

Genres like horror, thriller, romance, and comedy consistently attract clear market interest, in part because the audience is easy to recognise and reach.

3. Embrace the business of film, not just the creative

Long-term filmmaking careers depend on understanding financial, funding and market realities of filmmaking as well as creative storytelling. Many of the experts I spoke to described how creative choices are almost always shaped by practical constraints around financing, distribution requirements and market preferences.

Read more

I recently surveyed 327 film industry buyers, sales agents, distributors and festival executives, asking them plain questions about what independent filmmakers consistently get wrong.

Today I’m sharing the responses which relate to why films fail to secure distribution. Their answers frequently reflected frustration because they saw the same avoidable mistakes repeated over and over.

Here’s a summary, and below that I’ll go into more detail:

1. Your film lacks recognisable talent

2. Your film’s packaging and presentation materials are not strong enough

3. You're ignoring mainstream tastes and audience demand

4. You have not thought through your festival strategy carefully enough

5. Your marketing and distribution strategy feels like an afterthought

6. You have not properly researched or understood the marketplace

7. You're forgetting how much trust matters in the film industry

8. You overestimate your film’s importance or uniqueness

9. You've made an art film without realising it

10. Your vision and decisiveness in sales meetings leaves buyers uncertain

11. You're waiting until the last minute to think about your audience

12. You are producing films in genres or forms without clear marketable value

13. You misunderstand the implications of streamer acquisitions

14. Did you ask anyone what your film is really worth?

15. You haven't developed a clear business plan or financial strategy

16. You've lost perspective on your own work

17. Filmmakers assume the film will sell itself

18. You're overlooking the power of universal storytelling

Phew - that’s some pretty intense truth bombs. Let’s look at each in a little more detail in turn…

1. Your film lacks recognisable talent

In the responses I received, film professionals regularly cited the lack of familiar actors as a direct frustration. Talent attachment remains one of the first elements buyers and distributors look at when evaluating a film, allowing them to instantly gauge potential audience interest.

Many films without recognisable talent struck buyers as simply too risky in an environment where distributors have limited resources and must immediately stand out in crowded markets.

Securing even moderately well-known talent can drastically help build distributor confidence and open doors at festivals and sales markets. Industry professionals repeatedly underscored the need for filmmakers to accept the reality that attaching actors who carry existing recognition and appeal significantly reduces perceived marketing risks.

2. Your film’s packaging and presentation materials are not strong enough

Buyers and distributors emphasised how much they rely on clear, professional packaging and promotional materials during the initial evaluation stage.

This includes compelling trailers, well-designed lookbooks, impactful artwork, and strong synopsis copy.

Several industry professionals specifically pointed out that visually unappealing or amateurish presentations quickly undermined distributor interest by suggesting a lack of marketing awareness or professionalism on the filmmaker’s part.

The importance of having impactful first-look materials came across clearly from respondents, who described reviewing hundreds of submissions. Filmmakers who fail to catch a distributor’s eye at first glance rarely receive a second look. Conversely, distributors spoke positively about filmmakers who understood this dynamic, offering carefully curated promotional decks and presentation elements reflecting serious planning.

"A lookbook or director deck gives you a chance to create a better first look or a finance plan in place that makes the project feel grounded."

3. You’re ignoring mainstream tastes and audience demand

A common reaction I saw was scepticism toward overly niche or obscure films without clear audience appeal. There's a big market out there, yet filmmakers often don't design their films accordingly. If your film doesn't speak clearly to a defined, sizeable audience, you'll find little enthusiasm from distributors.

Multiple responses expressed disappointment over filmmakers pursuing highly personal or specialised topics without considering broad entertainment value.

So many people made reference to seeing countless indie films which they viewed as overwhelmingly dull or self-indulgent.

They emphasised how important it is to target broad genres or storytelling styles that directly attract larger audience segments. Distributors and sales agents need films positioned to compete with broad appeal rather than niche sensibilities.

One particularly blunt response said:

"Most indie Drama or Psychological Thriller films I’ve seen are completely boring. Snor fest. Like watching paint dry."

Read more

Landing an entry level position in Hollywood is one of the industry's enduring mysteries. Often it feels like a mix of blind luck and magic, leaving ambitious graduates and career changers wondering what it really takes.

But from the employer’s perspective, there are a small number of key skills and attributes they are looking for in their ideal candidates.

In order to work out exactly what they are, I studied 1,998 real job advertisements for entry level assistant roles from hundreds of film and TV companies, posted over the past five years.

What emerged were clear, repeatable insights about what each type of Hollywood employer genuinely cares about.

Here’s a summary, before we dive into the detail:

1. A college degree is helpful but rarely vital. Most entry level Hollywood roles do not specifically require degrees, but departments like scripted TV, animation and legal value them more highly.

2. Microsoft Office skills are essential everywhere. Hollywood runs on Excel, Word and Outlook, so confidently mastering these programs is a must.

3. Department preferences guide software priorities. Project management software matters most in production and operations, and Final Draft is valued in creative departments.

4. Soft skills matter enormously and vary by department. Talent representation and development favour initiative and ambition, whereas production heavy departments strongly prioritise adaptability and flexibility.

5. Production knowledge is vital for operational roles. Familiarity with budgets, schedules, and logistics is most relevant for studio operations and production jobs and least useful for development or talent representation.

6. Script reading proficiency is essential for creative roles. Scripted television and film development positions explicitly focus on your ability to provide insightful script coverage and clear story analysis.

7. Administrative excellence really is crucial. Positions in talent representation, business affairs, and operations place particular value on meticulous calendar management, clear professional email skills, careful scheduling, and efficient task prioritisation.

8. Creativity is useful in development but not universally needed. Highlight creative projects or storytelling abilities mainly when applying for roles in scripted television or feature development, not in operational or talent representation areas.

9. Tailoring your skills to each specific department matters. Always emphasise relevant skills aligned with the hiring department’s greatest stated priorities when applying rather than providing a general summary.

10. Clearly focus your applications to match job advertisements. Your best advantage is explicitly showing you understand exactly what each specific assistant job wants from their ideal candidate and making clear how your experience matches that.

Let’s dig a little deeper:

Education matters, but much less than you might think

There's a common assumption that to land an entry level Hollywood job you must have an impressive education and a degree from a prestigious film school.

But the data paints a much softer picture on academic credentials.

Almost three-quarters of these assistant jobs did not explicitly ask for any particular degree when posting their ads.

That said, the level of education required varied quite noticeably with the kind of role you are applying for.

If your preferred career path involves scripted television, animation, or particularly business and legal affairs, you will find your college degree carries considerable weight. Positions in business affairs and legal were by far the highest, with over three-quarters explicitly requesting the candidate hold at least a bachelor's degree. Animation and scripted shows followed closely, often mentioning degrees among preferred or required criteria.

By contrast, when it comes to film feature development roles or agencies and management companies, formal education appeared far less significant.

If you have a degree, great, but don't rely purely on it to shine. If you lack a degree, don’t stress. Instead, highlight your relevant experience, determination, practical skill set, and ability to learn fast and work hard.

To practically address this:

• If applying in scripted TV, animation, or legal roles, put education clearly on your resume or mention it meaningfully in your cover letter.

• Without a college degree, speak more confidently about your relevant real world experiences, practical projects, internships, time served in teams, and your proven problem solving capabilities.

The essential software you absolutely must know well

In nearly every advertisement I studied, hiring managers consistently flagged specific software skills they want applicants to master. Overwhelmingly, the most important application to know is Microsoft Office. Far from glamorous perhaps, but Microsoft Excel, Word, and Outlook proved fundamental across virtually every department.

Following Microsoft Office closely in popularity is Google Drive and related sharing tools. These were widespread across more production oriented or development related departments. Companies expect assistants to be entirely comfortable organizing information, scheduling efficiently, managing calendars seamlessly, and sharing data securely and accurately with teams.

Project management software like Asana, Monday.com or Jira turned up repeatedly in advertisements for physical production and operations roles. Your ability to quickly and effectively begin manipulating these helpful tools signals clearly that you understand how modern filmed content manages tight deadlines, complex schedules and distributed teams.

Practical recommendations to immediately improve:

Read more

Not so 2020. The current COVID-19 pandemic has forced a number of huge changes upon the sector over a matter of days. Cinemas are shut, productions are on hiatus and almost everyone is at home watching TV and VOD content.

In order to take the industry’s temperature at these uncertain times, I teamed up with Screendollars to interview 363 film professionals. We focused on the domestic market (i.e. USA and Canada) and asked a range of questions about their views on the current changes and what they think a post-lockdown future may bring.

We split respondents into five groups, based on their area of professional work:

• Filmmakers, covering development, production and post-production.

• Sales & Distribution, including sales agents, distributors and marketers.

• Exhibition, cinema owners and operators.

• Home Ent, TV & VOD, including physical and digital sales, all forms of VOD and films on television.

• Other, including those in education, government bodies, festivals, journalism, cinema suppliers and more.

Mood of the industry

The vast majority of respondents agreed that COVID-19 has negatively affected all aspects of the film industry which take place outside of people’s homes. Furthermore, there is a cross-industry consensus that the exhibition sector has been the hardest hit by the pandemic.

The chart below shows the perceived impact of the pandemic on each sector of the industry. An average score of zero would show that the respondents felt there would be no change between January 2020 and January 2021 for the sector in question. Therefore, a negative score reflects a perception that things will be worse, and a positive score reflects a better future.

Despite most agreeing that the long-term will be kind to the people supplying movies to consumers’ homes, those involved are still worried about their current positions. Almost half of the people working in Home Entertainment say that the solvency of their employer is their top or second concern.

Breaking windows

Perhaps the most consequential changes to the industry are being felt in the exhibition sector. Over the past decade, cinemas and studios have fought a slow battle over the amount of time a new movie should be exclusively available in cinemas (known as the theatrical window), which currently sits at 90 days.

Despite this, the pandemic has seen a number of releases break the window detente. Disney brought Frozen 2 and Star Wars to digital platforms sooner than expected and Universal eschewed the traditional theatrical release for Trolls World Party altogether.

The research reveals a deep divide between the makers of movies and those who screen them in cinemas. Only 30% of filmmakers think the theatrical window should be longer than 60 days, compared with 84% of those in exhibition.

Only a third of people working in Exhibition agree with Disney's decision to release Frozen 2 and Star Wars early on their SVOD platform, Disney+. This is far fewer than those in Sales and Distribution (70% of whom agree) and filmmakers 66%).

A similar pattern is seen in relation to Trolls World Party, with just 14% of filmmakers thinking Universal made a misstep with their VOD premiere compared with 58% of those in exhibition.

Despite these specific examples, it’s interesting to note that half of the filmmakers don’t think studios should be skipping theatrical releases for their upcoming titles, with only a quarter of filmmakers actively supporting a VOD-first approach.

Unsurprisingly, the folks in Exhibition are still very much pro studios releasing films in their cinemas first, with fewer than one in ten supporting the studios’ VOD release strategy.

Expectations of the post-lockdown future

Respondents working in the exhibition sector were the most optimistic about a speedy return to pre-lockdown levels of cinema attendance. 58% felt that things would be back to “normal” within a few months. There were also the least likely to believe that cinema attendance will never return to pre-pandemic levels.

The reverse is true of those working in Home Entertainment, with two-thirds believing cinema-going won’t regain its former glory within a year, if ever.

Exhibitors seem more bullish about their ability to protect exclusive windows than their peers in sales and distribution.

Solutions to aid recovery

When quizzed on the merit of a number of possible actions to support post-lockdown cinema attendance, most agreed that price was not the defining factor.

The most popular measure overall was new hygiene and sanitation practices in cinemas, closely followed by a desire for government communications to declare cinemas to be safe.

The future

Perhaps the hardest thing to predict at the moment are the long-term effects of the pandemic. On the one hand, audiences have become more accustomed to paying more for VOD-first content and it may take a long time for them to feel safe spending a few hours in crowded public spaces. On the other, being cooped up inside may further highlight the appeal of the big screen and movie-going provides a (relatively) inexpensive social experience.

No matter how audiences respond, the biggest changes caused by the pandmeic are likely to be the ones taking place away from public view. The finely balanced power dynamics of releasing have been destroyed and the outcome is as-yet-uncertain. Studios may feel emboldened to further shorten theatrical windows and loss of months of income could harm some exhibitors’ ability to invest or even continue operating.

Perhaps the most surprising result from the survey is that all sectors in the industry recognise the need for change. Two-thirds of respondents in Exhibition agree than some change will be needed in the business model of cinemas.

What that change will be… is less clear.

Despite the broad agreement that change is needed, the two ideas we tested provided a return to the polarisation we saw in earlier questions, with Filmmakers strongly in favour of change but with Exhibition folks much more resistant.

Half of the exhibition cohort thought that flexible release windows should not be adopted, compared with just 13% of filmmakers.

Finally, we asked if a day-and-date release (i.e. simultaneous release in cinemas and on digital platforms) would provide a greater overall income than the traditional window release pattern. As one would expect, those in home entertainment thought it would while those in exhibition thought not.

However, the key group here are those in sales and distribution, as they see the complete value chain and are seeking to maximise revenue across all platforms. In this case, they broadly agreed with the exhibitors, implying that perhaps we are not on the cusp of a day-and-date revolution quite yet.

Notes

This survey was conducted between 4th and 14th May 2020. Respondents were self-selecting and we cannot know to what extent their views are shared by others.

We focused on the domestic market as 94.5% of our survey respondents were based in the United States or Canada. 58% of respondents were at senior or top positions in their companies and 81% expect to be still working in the industry in five years’ time

Last week, I ran a symposium for senior industry figures in UK cinema, supported by Into Film.  In attendance were representatives from the biggest cinema chains, distributors, public bodies, industry bodies and some big names from film production.  The event was a private forum for executives to share their experiences, ideas and solutions with the aim of increasing cinema attendance among young people.  (Note: We observed the Chatham House Rule, meaning that I can share what was said but not who said it.  This proved vital in the discussion of the topic and for the freeflow of ideas).

To aid the debate, I worked with Liora Michlin to prepare two new reports on the topic:

• A literature review of 47 existing studies into young audiences, summarising and collating the key findings.

• A survey of 1,000 11-to-15-year-olds in the UK, looking at their attitudes and interactions with cinema-going.

The full papers are available to download at the links above but I thought I would pick out nine choice tidbits and three primers on the topic.  We're going to address three questions:

1. What is happening to cinema attendance among young people?

2. Why does this matter?

3. What can be done to regain younger audiences?

What is happening to cinema attendance among young people?

• Ever fewer young people are visiting UK cinemas. Between 2011 and 2017, UK cinema admissions were close to static (a 0.6% decline) whereas admissions from 15- to 24-year-olds fell by 20.6%.

• It's not just the UK. Many other countries have seen a decline, including major markets such as the US and Germany.  The International Union of Cinemas (UNIC) reports that the average age of a cinema-goer in 2001 was 38.3 years old, whereas by 2016 it had risen to 42.6.

• This trend is related to the cinema itself. There has been no comparable change in young people’s engagement with other major art forms.

The trend is best illustrated in the two charts below.  The UK data comes from Film Monitor via the BFI and the US data is from the MPAA.  (More on the data in the Notes section).

Why does this matter?

• Young audiences are a key demographic for cinemas. 15- to 24-year-olds make up a larger proportion of cinema audiences than any other age group – in 2017 they made up 28% of admissions in the UK, despite being only 12% of the population. In addition, young people are especially over-represented during opening weekends and opening week, and once they engage with a film they tend to be very active in all aspects of it.

• Due to the social nature of cinema-attendance among young people, a small decline could spiral. One of the common reasons young people cite for not going to the cinema is not having people to go with them.  The network effect suggests that as fewer young people attend cinemas, their remaining pro-cinema peers will have even fewer people to go with, creating a vicious cycle further depressing demand.

• Cinema-going habits are formed young and remain as we age.  If the current generation of young people disengages with cinema-going in a big way then it is unlikely they will attend cinemas in the decades to come. This also extends to the appreciation of film as an art-form (assuming that these non-cinema attending young people are not replacing their cinema viewing with equally-reverent movie watching on other platforms).

Using BFI and ONS data we can see that young people hugely over-index for cinema admissions.

What can be done to regain younger audiences?

In our survey of 1,000 11-to-15-year-olds, we asked all sorts of questions around attendees and behaviours towards cinema attendance.  I suggest you read the full report as I can only scratch the surface here.  Nonetheless, I want to highlight three strong findings which suggest actions the industry can take to make cinema more attractive to young audiences.

• Reduce the actual (or perceived) cost of a cinema trip. Spending money and socio-economic factors are very strong predictors of cinema attendance.  In particular, a group we call 'potential cinema-goers' (i.e. those who like visiting the cinema, live near one but who don't go often) typically have less spending money and are from lower socio-economic backgrounds.  This means that lower ticket prices are likely to increase cinema attendance among young people.  The research also highlighted that it's not just the actual cost of the trip which matters but also the perception that cinema is expensive.  Therefore, increasing the perceived value of a cinema visit could have a positive effect on attendance.

• Tackle the struggles of organising a trip to the cinema. For regular cinema-attendees, friends/family having different film tastes is a strong block to going more often. Facilitating group outings for those held back by the film tastes of their friends is an opportunity to increase attendance, such as through film clubs or social mixers.  Furthermore, a commonly cited barrier to cinema attendance is how hard it can be to organise a cinema trip and so anything cinemas can do to help with this is likely to have a strong positive effect.

• Enhance the whole experience of a cinema trip, beyond just the movie being screened. The research shows that sociability is the key selling point of cinema for young people.  This means that the whole experience before, during and after the screening is taken into account when assessing whether to visit.  Cinema attendance is likely to be increased via things like sofas in the lobby, discounts on post-cinema activities (i.e. ten pin bowling), access to social eating facilities (whether on-site or nearby), etc.

A bonus note on programming

So far there has been no discussion of the films on offer.  This is partly because younger audiences care much less about which movies are playing than older audiences (hence the state of modern Hollywood blockbusters) and partly because cinemas don't have a great deal of choice in what to show.

In theory, there are a large number of movies they can screen, as there are over 900 new movies released each year in the UK.  However, in practice, the vast majority of tickets sold are for the biggest studio movies with massive marketing budgets and the most famous names.  This means that if cinemas want to be able to pay their rent and staff, they have to be offering whatever major release opens each week.

However, our survey of young people did throw up one programming suggestion.

Boys go to the cinema more often than girls, but there is no difference in the proportion that have not been to the cinema at all in the past month. i.e. boys are more likely to be repeat cinema-goers. There was no difference in the perception of cinema as a most valued local facility, suggesting that the difference in levels of attendance between genders isn’t due to attitudes towards the cinema-going experience.  Girls especially felt that the barrier to going more often is that cinemas were not showing films they wanted to see.

This suggests that more films targeted towards young women will increase cinema admissions among that group.

Notes

The literature review and new research together run over 62 pages and so I have heavily summarised the work for this article.  If I have made a claim or quoted a statistic in this article which you would like to know more about, please take a look at the reports for the source, details, context and caveats.  This blog is read by people in many different areas of film and some just want headlines.  If you would like to go deeper, I highly recommend you refer to the reports rather than the article, just for the sake of being complete.

The data showing the percentage of young people in cinema audiences across the UK and Domestic markets are measuring subtly different things.  The UK data come from the Film Monitor survey via the BFI Yearbook.  It is gathered via exit polls of audiences seeing a selection of top films each year.  The US and Canadian data cames via MPAA annual reports, and covers "tickets sold".

I don't wish to imply that this is an uncontroversial or inevitable decline.  One of the views expressed by a knowledgeable executive in the exhibition sector at the event was that there isn't really a problem in the UK.  They pointed out that the decline is from a high base (i.e. in 2011, The Inbetweeners was a huge success with young audiences) and that young audiences are returning to the cinema at the level of the early 2000s.  I would say that their views are in the minority among fellow film professionals but they are certainly not alone or without merit.  It could well be that this is a minor cyclical blip which will naturally rebound in the fullness of time.

It's also true that there is nothing the film industry likes more than a declaration of doom and gloom - the UK industry especially!  The history of the film business is that of crying "Agh! The good times are over", whether it be the introduction of television, pre-recorded videos, piracy, streaming, sequels or people enjoying superhero movies.

I'm extremely grateful to Into Film for their tireless support of the research and of the event.  None of it would have been possible without their encouragement, work, resources and financial backing.  Not only that, but this symposium took place during their month-long annual festival in which they hold screenings and events for over half a million school children across the UK.  Chatting to Into Film staff on the day, I learned that our symposium was taking place at the same moment as almost 400 other events throughout the UK. Yikes!

I'm also very grateful to my co-author Liora Michlin, without whom the research and event would not have taken place.

Epilogue

It's impossible to know what the future holds for film and for cinema-going.  There's no doubt that the world is changing in so many ways. The opportunities and pressures on young people today are so different from those of the past century that it seems extremely unlikely that cinema attendance will remain completely unchanged.  However, despite the massive shifts we've seen in technology, social interactions and societal norms, young people will always need fun ways to be social in the real world.

One possible outcome is that the current trends continue and we see further fragmentation of the cinema into two ever-more-different experiences:

• "Spectacle cinema" - Big blockbuster films get bigger, dominate more of the space in multiplexes and cinemas focus on brighter, louder shared experiences designed to provide visual and audible awe.  We've seen how successful this can be for recent movies in the Marvel and Star Wars franchises.

• "Premium cinema" - Plusher cinemas offer arthouse fare and unique experiences.  Patrons pay a higher ticket price than those in the 'spectacle cinemas' and in return receive a premium experience, watch less spectacle-driven programming, with live elements.  The Everyman cinema chain has profited from this approach in the UK and we can see examples of the programming from Secret Cinema and NT Live theatre performances.

The former is likely to skew younger, due to the types of the movies on offer and the social aspect of simultaneous shared experiences, both on- and offline.  The latter would skew older, due to the increased cost, the mature setting and the movies on offer.

Who knows if this will come to pass.  What is certain is that all aspects of the film industry flourish when they are connected to their audiences and what they want to pay for.

Download the full report

Leisure activities of 11- to 15-year-olds

• 69% of young people went to the cinema at least once in the last month.

• 95% of young people watched a film at home at least once in the last month.

• Frequency of cinema-going is affected by: region, gender, social grade, availability of cinema, spending money, and frequency of film viewing at home.

Drivers of leisure activity

• The most important factor for young people when deciding what to do with their free time is how much fun the activity is. Other top considerations are being able to do it with friends, getting permission from parents, and the cost of doing it.

• Those who don’t receive pocket money or are from lower social grades are more likely to be concerned about the cost of activities.

• Young people are most influenced by their friends’ opinions, though also perceive themselves as making their own decisions. Beyond this, where they acknowledge others’ influence, this is by-and-large their parents/guardians. This is especially true for the least frequent cinema-goers.

Attitudes to the cinema

• When asked which facility in their local area they would be most upset to lose, cinema came top along with sports facilities. Cinema was more valued than facilities for more frequently performed activities, such as shopping centres.

• There was no difference between genders in selection of cinema as a most valued facility, suggesting the difference in levels of attendance between genders isn’t due to attitudes towards the cinema experience.

• Older people in this age group were more likely to value cinema than the younger people, despite no difference in levels of attendance.

Deciding to go the cinema

• The top factor driving cinema trips is wanting to see a specific film as soon as possible. The next highest ranked drivers are whether young people’s friends and family are spurring on trips.

• For the frequent cinema-goers, just wanting to go to the cinema because they like it is enough of
  a motivation.

• For others, wanting to see a film in a cinema because it particularly suits the big screen experience is another strong driver.

• Recommendations are more important than ‘buzz’ for these young people – friends talking about the film and good reviews are more important than seeing lots of people talking about the film on
  social media.

Barriers to cinema attendance

• The barriers to cinema attendance range widely across these young people, with no single barrier emerging strongest. Barriers fall into the following four categories:

• Logistical barriers: young people want to go, but it’s a lot of time/effort. These barriers were highly ranked, especially a lack of time, and weren’t specific to any particular group.

• Social barriers: lack of people to go with. This is another very high block for young people, despite ranking cinema as a popular activity to do with friends. It seems that cinema is popular at a particular frequency range for some, and thus friends not wanting to go beyond this frequency is a block to going more often for others. 

• Film selection: females and older people in this age group especially felt that the cinemas not showing films they want to see is a barrier to going more often. For the frequent cinema-goers, friends/family having different film tastes is a strong barrier to going more often. Connecting frequent cinema-goers for group trips may tackle this barrier.  

• Cinema experience: among the least frequent cinema goers, barriers related to the cinema experience were strongest. Having better things to do was top for this group, closely followed by not wanting to go too often as that makes it less special. Thus, the least frequent cinema-goers are a mix of those who don’t enjoy the cinema much, and those who enjoy it but are choosing not to go very often.

Changes to the cinema experience

• In terms of practical changes to cinemas, most young people would only really change how close it was to where they live and the range of films. Despite lots of focus on optimising apps and websites for young people, this is the aspect of cinemas they are most content with.

• For wider changes to the cinema experience, young people ranked financial incentives top. However, offers alone aren’t what motivate young people to go to the cinema, as these incentives were about making the experience larger. Along the same lines, places to hang out before/after the screening
  is popular.

• Film related incentives such as personalised recommendations for films, talks about the film before/after the screening, film merchandise etc. mainly appeal to the already frequent cinema-goers.

Cinema vs competitor activities

• Cinema ranks very highly compared to competing activities on fun, sociability, and popularity with friends, and lower on being relaxing and easy to organise. Of all these factors, fun is the most important for these young people.

• The advantage cinema has over competing activities is being seen as sociable by facilitating group activities for young people. This is one of the most important considerations young people have when choosing what to do with their time.

Predictors of cinema attendance

• Using a predictive model across all attitudes and demographic groups revealed in this study, it emerges that the strongest predictors of cinema attendance are either related to money or availability of cinema.

• Attitudinal differences towards leisure time or the cinema are not strong predictors of cinema attendance.

• The strongest positive predictors are receiving pocket money or having a part-time job. Related to this, being from social groups ABC1 is one of the top predictors.

• Other top predictors are having a cinema nearby or living in a city.

• The strongest negative predictor is associating cinema with the word ‘expensive’. This remains true across social grades, which suggests it’s not just about affordability but perceived value, i.e. those who did not associate the word ‘expensive’ have different primary associations with cinema, not simply more spending money.

The potential cinema-goers

• Potential cinema-goers are those with a cinema very nearby, but who haven’t been at all in the past month. They are much more price-sensitive when choosing free-time activities and are much more likely to have a primary association with cinema as “expensive”.

• Potential cinema-goers care more about whether friends want to do activities and they are most influenced by friends’ opinions. Correspondingly, friends wanting to go to the cinema is the top non-film-driven reason they go. Therefore, targeting potential cinema-goers should focus on group experiences.

• Among the potential cinema-goers that like and value the cinema, the top barrier for not going more often is not wanting to make it less special. This group is perceiving cinema as an activity to only be done occasionally, and changing this perception is important in increasing their cinema attendance.

Recommendations

• Targeting young people needs to focus on supporting group cinema-going and enabling young people to make the experience larger than just the screening. Sociability is the key selling point of cinema for young people.

• Cinema is valued, but it’s also considered an infrequent activity. A big block for the least frequent cinema-goers is not wanting to go more often as that makes it less special. There is a choice here to either change this habit by facilitating more frequent visits, or to work with this by allowing young people to make the occasion even more special.

• For the already frequent cinema-goers, friends/family having different film tastes is a strong block to going more often. Facilitating group outings for these cinema-goers held back by the film tastes of their friends is an opportunity to increase attendance, perhaps through film clubs.

• Spending money and socio-economic factors are very strong predictors of cinema attendance, and the potential cinema-goers especially have less spending money and are from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Adjusting ticket prices is therefore likely to particularly affect the potential cinema-goers.

• The strongest negative predictor of cinema attendance is the association with cinema as ‘expensive’. This is true across socio-economic groups, and thus changing perceptions of the value of the cinema experience should be able to impact this association. The key priority areas around which to change perceptions are how relaxing the cinema experience is, and how easy to organise the activity is. Relaxation is ranked highly as a free-time decision criterion, but among the potential cinema-goers the cinema is especially viewed as difficult to organise.  

Way back in the early 1990s, software packages were being launched which empowered screenwriters to craft their work safe in the knowledge that they could maintain multiple versions, back up important scripts and meet the industry's tough formatting guidelines.

Cut to thirty years later and now there are dozens of packages available, many offering extra features to help writers with brainstorming, planning and reporting on all aspects of the script.

I thought it would be interesting to take a quick look at the biggest packages on the market and see how they stack up against each other.

I'm going to measure three things:

1. Awareness - Market penetration among screenwriters

2. Activity - Percentage of scripts written in each program

3. Attitude - What screenwriters think of each program

I'll be drawing on two sources of data to do this:

There is more information about both of these sources in the 'Notes' section at the end of the article.

Here are the seven packages I have data for (presented in alphabetical order):

• Celtx - $180 annual subscription.  Celtx was previously a free, open-source, desktop software but development stopped in 2011 and it was officially discontinued in 2017.  It is now a paid, cloud-based subscription service.

• Fade In - $80 purchase.  Launched in 2011 and aimed squarely at the top end of the screenwriting industry.

• Final Draft - $250 purchase.  Final Draft is the old package, with its first Mac version launching in 1990. PC users got their first release five years later in 1995.

• Movie Magic Screenwriter - $250 purchase. Movie Magic Screenwriter was created by the combination of two older screening programs - ScriptThing and Scriptor (which was awarded an Academy Award for technical achievement in 1994).

• Scrivener -$45 purchase. Launched in 2007 and designed for many types of writers including novelists, journalists and screenwriters.

• Trelby - Free. It was initially launched as a commercial product called 'Blyte' in 2003.  In 2006 it was renamed and converted into an open-source free product.

• WriterDuet - $89 annual subscription. Launched in 2013, it is currently a cloud-based online tool.  Your first three scripts are free, after which you'll need an annual Pro subscription.

Right, let's take a look at how they fare...

1. Awareness

Let's start with brand awareness. Within my survey of over 2,000 screenwriters, I asked respondents whether they had ever used each of the seven major screenwriting programs.

93% of professional screenwriters have used Final Draft, as have 76% of aspiring screenwriters.  The second place program is Celtx, which lags behinds at 39% and 49% respectively.

2. Activity

Next, let's take a look at which is the more frequently used program.

Using metadata in the PDF files, we were able to determine which program was used to write the majority of the over 12,000 scripts in our script readers study.  Sadly there were a few programs which did not reveal themselves via this process and so they have not been included in the chart below.  I.e. the chart shows percentages of scripts for which we could determine the source program.

Final Draft again tops the pack, with a market share of 59%.  Celtx was second at 12%, followed by Movie Magic Screenwriter (8%), WriterDuet (7%) and Fade In (4%).  9% of scripts were written in programs not intended for screenplay creation, such as Word, Pages and, yes, even NotePad.

For each script, we have a Review Score, out of ten, given by the professional script readers who reviewed the script.

It will surprise few to learn that scripts written in general word processing programs performed the poorest.  That's not because those programs make scripts worse, but rather because in screenwriting there is a strong link between experience and quality, and one would expect serious screenwriters to have taken the time to acquire a dedicated program to write in.

There is not a huge difference between the top three programs, with scripts written in Final Draft coming out on top with an average score of 5.3 out of 10, Fade In with 5.0 and Movie Magic with 4.9.

3. Attitude

Finally, let's take a look at what screenwriters think of each of the major programs.

Of those who had used a program, we asked them to say whether they "loved it", "kinda liked it", were indifferent or "hated it".   Maybe by now you will have already guessed which program came out on top...

Yes, Final Draft had the highest percentage of screenwriters saying they "loved" it (52% of people who'd used it) and the lowest percentage of haters (just 4%).  WriterDuet came second (37% love, 5% hate) and Fade In third (35% love, 4% hate)

I used this data to create a rough relative score for each program ("love" = two points, "kinda like" = one point and "hate" = minus one) and split the results by the screenwriters' experience.

The biggest differences between the level of experience were with WriterDuet and Celtx, both of which are preferred by aspiring screenwriters more than by professionals.

So in all three ways of measuring impact, Final Draft comes out on top.  They are certainly the market leaders, although the other major screenwriting packages have many fans and the sector is far from owned by Final Draft.

Notes

The survey data is self-reported answers from people who chose to complete our survey.  That adds all manner of biases when compared to the empirical market share data we gleaned from the PDF metadata. 11% of the respondents fall into my definition of "Professionals" and 89% are "Aspiring".

This is wholly independent research.  Just for the avoidance of doubt, here is my Shermanesque statement:  I was not paid, rewarded, induced or coerced into writing this article by any party, least of all any screenwriting programs.  None of the programs mentioned above were aware of this article before publication and none had any influence on the results.  In the course of researching our script readers report, I did chat with technical staff at Celtx and WriterDuet in order to help me understand the metadata their programs create.

Screencraft were essential in providing the screenplays and also helped promote the survey on their networks.  The research and number crunching was carried out independently by myself and my report co-authors, Josh Cockcroft and Liora Michlin.   This means that the results could not have been influenced in any way by any deals or connections Screencraft may have with script software.  That said, they never asked, suggested or even so much as hinted we do anything other than find out what the data reveals and report it faithfully.

Most programs offer discounted pricing for students, teachers, upgrades and bulk purchases.  The prices I listed are the current US dollar un-discounted price for the latest version as of the writing of this article.

Celtx is a complicated program to track as it has changed from being a free desktop program to a paid online subscription service.  All the scripts we studied were exported between 2016 and 2018 and so we can't know if they were using the old or new incarnation.  Likewise, the views screenwriters shared could be recent or historical.

Other screenwriting packages are available.  These ones studied were picked due to a combination of relevance and availability of data.  This market snapshot takes no account of the features, quality or cost of each program - it's simply reflecting the views and actions of screenwriters. Each program offers a different writing experience, so if you're currently deliberating over which program to use I would highly recommend trying each and going with whichever works best for you.  It doesn't matter what everyone else uses and no matter how well coded a piece of software is, it cannot make you a better writer in any meaningful sense.

In summary...

• The most common cinema customer complaints are about the price of food and tickets

• And two thirds of cinema staff feel that cinema tickets and food cost too much

• Londoners complain the least about cinema prices, despite London having the highest average prices

• Many staff members incorrectly believe cinemas only keep 10% of the ticket price (the true figure is around 50%)

• The vast majority of UK cinema staff are paid at or just over the national minimum wage

• Supervisors and managers are paid below the national average wage

• 83% of cinema staff said they enjoy their current job

• A third of the people working in cinemas today want to be working for the same company in five years time

• 91% of cinema staff happily eat cinema food

Common customer complaints

I asked the respondents about the most common complaints they receive from customers.  Based on my recent articles I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear that the prices for tickets and food were the topics causing the most ire. 60% of staff surveyed mentioned the food prices and 56% mentioned ticket prices (many staff gave more than one topic).

I also asked if the customer complaints were justified.  On the topic of food and ticket prices, 67% of staff members felt that customers were right to complain.  Here are some quotes from those who empathised with the customers on the topic of pricing...

"Prices are becoming ridiculously expensive and are the reason that the cinema isn't as popular as it used to be. People would rather sit at home and watch movies on a computer screen than pay our prices and I don't blame them."

"The prices is by far the most common and yes they are justified. It is starting to get embarrassing now."

"The price of tickets and concessions. It is expensive and can be a shock if you're not aware of how much a trip to cinema can cost."

"The price of the tickets being too high and I totally agree. I sold 3 tickets to 3 adults the other day and it cost them over £40. I'd have to work 6 hours to earn that much!"

"Price, yes they are justified the chain I work for increases the admissions charge every quarter! And the amount they have gone up since I started is crazy they have nearly doubled from £5.35 in 2007 to £9.95 now!"

"Prices, yes they justified but it is not my (the customer assistants) fault that the prices are set at that price, so complaining, getting annoyed at me isn't going to change anything"

The areas that are complaining the most about prices are West Midlands, East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber.  The area with the fewest complaints about prices was London - ironically the area with the highest prices!  I don't know why this is but it could have something to do with the high cost of all entertainment in London (or theoretically it could be that Londoners are far too polite to complain...)

A common myth about the cinema's income from tickets

Among the 35% who felt that the complaints about pricing were not justified there was a common theme in their answers; the belief that cinemas don't keep much of the cinema price.  For example...

"Yes food is expensive, but that's because we get next to no profit from ticket prices. If we didn't sell food at such high prices, we wouldn't be able to afford screen maintenance and to actually acquire films."

"The price and how expensive everything is. I then explain how we only make 10% off ticket sales that's why the company makes food and drink expensive"

"The price of concessions, yes the complaints are justified, popcorn is not expensive to make! However I understand that our cinema and most others only get 10% of ticket prices so they have to make some money somewhere."

What's interesting about this is that it's not true - cinemas keep around half of the ticket price, after VAT.

The myth that cinemas only keep 10% of the ticket price seems widespread and isn't limited to a single chain or region.   In a survey I conducted last year of over 1,200 film industry professionals, the average reported fee charged by cinemas was 44% of the income and it's not unheard of for cinemas to keep 70% of the income of an independent film.

Earlier this year in Germany, over 200 cinemas refused to show Avengers: Age of Ultron as part of a boycott of Disney films, after the studio tried to reduce the cinema share from 52% to 47%.

Other complaints

Other common complaints from customers included...

• The temperature of the cinema (too hot, too cold, loud air conditioning, no air conditioning)

• Popcorn-related crisis (Sweet popcorn being too cold and salt popcorn being too salty)

• Having to ID check young patrons and getting stick from them and/or their parents

• Other customers making noise or sitting in the wrong seats

• Noise - the cinema being too loud or hearing the movie in the next screen

Pay

The vast majority of cinema staff are paid rates very close to the national minimum wage. For example, Odeon 'Cinema Host's received £5.56 per hour if they're under 21 years old and £6.80 per hour if they're 21 or older.  Supervisors and managers are paid more, although all the people I surveyed were paid below the national average wage for the UK of £24,650.

Here are a few salaries for supervisors...

• Cineworld £8.00 ph

• Odeon (South West) £9.00 ph

• Odeon (North East) £8.66 ph

• Odeon (London) £9.49 ph

And for managers...

• Odeon (London) Deputy Manager  £19,000 pa

• Vue (South East) Manager £19,500 pa

• Cineworld (London) Duty Manager £21,500 pa

• Odeon (Scotland) Manager £24,000 pa

According to recent reports in the BBC, The Guardian and BECTU, many UK cinema staff are on zero-hour contracts. This means that they're not guaranteed a minimum number of hours per week, placing how much they earn entirely in the hands of whoever is creating the weekly rota.

Do cinema staff enjoy their jobs?

Working in a cinema might be most childrens' idea of heaven and most adults' idea of hell.  I asked my group whether they enjoyed their job and their answers surprised me a little.  I was expecting to find low levels of job satisfaction due the low pay, low customer satisfaction with the cinema experience and reports of inflexible zero-hour contracts.  In fact, 83% of cinema staff said they enjoyed their current job, with Odeon coming out on top of the big three (85%), followed by Vue (81%) and Cineworld (79%).

The most common reasons people cited for enjoying their job was the fun they had with their colleagues.  Here are a few of the positive remarks about their work...

"One of the best jobs I've ever had."

"I love it, definitely hope to be working there in 5 years. By far best job I've ever had."

"Yeah it's awesome most of the time. Fun environment and work with great peeps"

"I really enjoy my position at Odeon. The staff are really great. I see myself progressing in Odeon as a leader or as an accountant of the establishment in 5+ years time."

Grumbles from the dissatisfied 17% include low wages, unfriendly working hours and the customers.  Comments included...

"Very stressful, often work long hours with no overtime pay or appreciation from head office. After many years with the company, I am now job hunting."

"I hate being public enemy number one, I used to love working with people but I've been abused by so many customers in the cinema that I dread going there!"

"I dislike the zero hour contract and the minimum wage pay especially since their prices for concessions are constantly increasing."

"The cinema industry is a total money-grabbing evil empire only interested in squeezing as much money out of the public as possible."

I also asked "Do you think you will be working for the same company in five years?"  Again, the result surprised me - a third of the people working in cinemas today want to be working for the same company in five years time.

The people who said they do enjoy their job but who don't think they'll still be working in a cinema in five years cited all manner of next steps, including university, teaching, the Police, the Army, advertising, psychology and more.  These people broadly seem happy with a fun place to work while they are working towards their next career step.

The results from this survey suggest that working in a cinema is a good job to have while you're a student.  You can expect a fun environment with free movies and popcorn, but with some hard demands and low wages.

Should you eat the food on sale in cinemas?

Last week I looked at the cost and calorific content of cinema popcorn, but one topic I couldn't measure is the quality and cleanliness of the food on sale.  Whilst at university I had a friend who worked at a nearby major cinema (which shall remain nameless) and I would get regular warnings about the quality of the food.  At least twice during my three years studying I heard stories of the popcorn having to be junked due to failed health investigations.  So I asked my respondents if they felt comfortable eating the food sold at their site.  I needn't have worried as nine out of ten cinema staff recommend cinema food (higher than the number of dentists who recommend Colgate or cats who are fans of Whiskers).

A number of people praised the standard of food hygiene at their site, including...

"I frequently purchase food from the cinema on my breaks. The standard of hygiene is very high and I wouldn't have a problem eating anything made there."

"I would be happy to eat all of the food we prepare in our cinema. I know temp checks, date labels and quality of foods are our priority."

"All our food prep areas and equipment are thoroughly cleaned every night. All stock out of date is disposed of and everything is very fresh/clean!"

Of those who advised against eating the food almost every person singled out the hotdogs and the cheese which is poured on the nachos.

Changes in the cinema business

Throughout the survey, answers I heard a repeated point from a number of people - the business is changing.  Many cite that Management are expecting them to do more work without an increase in wage rates or paid hours.  Others complained about how increasingly ruthless their chain is becoming - citing increased prices, sales techniques and a reduction in the attention paid to the customer experience.

"Yes I enjoy my job for the most part. Though my particular company seems to be straying further towards a retail business every day and further from a customer service industry which is the part i love."

"The majority of the time yes, although with the changes the company are making and requiring a lot more from their employees without the pay it is unfair."

"I used to and no the job has changed so much and it's not as good as it used to be plus the wages are not enough to raise a family!"

"It used to be great then we got some new management and it changed and isn't fun or enjoyable anymore."

The final word

I asked the group "Is there anything you want to say to the customers who attend your cinema?"  So, as a thank you to the lovely 151 cinema staff who took the time to give me their thoughts, I present below a selection of the things they want you to know...

"Please don't have a go at staff for the lack of staff (queues held up) as it is not their fault, it's down to the lack of hours the cinema gets."

"Treat me (all of us) like a human being, show respect, be polite, don't direct your complaints at me unless I actually did something wrong. I work in customer service industry but I'm not a servant."

"Please clean up after yourselves, it's hard enough as it is."

"Try and clear up after yourself if you can, there are plenty of bins for popcorn cartoons and drinks containers. Please take them out with you rather than leaving them on the floor for staff to clean up."

"Please tidy up after yourselves and your children. Please. Please for the love of god."

"Put your rubbish in the BIN. TAKE YOUR RUBBISH WITH YOU! No your child does not have a bug, you just let them drink 2 large iceblasts you idiot!!"

"We are humans as well, and just doing our jobs"

"We are just the little guys, we have no control over the prices. The change in having allocated seating was not my choice to make, to add on a booking fee with online sale wasn't my idea. The screen selling out doesn't justify you screaming at me. Your underage child can't watch an 18 certificate film as it is the law."

"We're aware that the prices are diabolical but we can't change them, please stop shouting at us"

"We don't make the prices don't complain to us complain to head office"

Methodology

I surveyed 151 people who currently work in UK cinemas.  I found them via targeted Facebook adverts, which only showed to people who listed a UK cinema as their current employer. 41% work in an Odeon, 32% in a Vue cinema, 23% in a Cineworld and 4% for other companies.  85% were junior staff, 11% were supervisors and 4% were managers.

It's worth noting that these are the views of the staff on the ground and so they may not give the full picture. For example, the increased push towards sales could be viewed as either money-grabbing greed or increased efficiency and elimination of waste, depending on whose point of view you use.

Epilogue

Today's article has given me a vivid and fascinating insight into that it's like to work in a cinema.  I have been to the cinema many hundreds of time in my life and I now have an added respect for their job.  And, yes, I will be taking my rubbish home with me when I see a movie from now on.

In the third installment of my film school study, I am giving voice to this growing cohort of film students.  I surveyed 317 film students past and present and asked them an array of questions about their course, their school and their experiences. In summary...

• Film students seem to really enjoy their time studying film

• Students are not confident that their course has prepared them for a career in film

• Over a quarter of all students said they wanted an increase in awareness of industry practice

• Students on longer courses had more fun but were less confident that their course prepared them for employment in the industry

• Students want more practical study and more specialised modules

• 56% of students feel that their Head of School is doing a good job

• Film students and film employers have slightly different views on what makes a new entrant more employable.

• Students undervalued the significance of having a driving licence and overestimated the value of all other factors.

Film school is fun, but does it prepare you for a career in film?

I asked the film students to provide a rating between 1 and 5 for a number of simple statements.  The highest scoring statement was "I enjoyed my time on this course", scoring an average of 4.1 out of 5.  The lowest scoring statement was "My course prepared me for a career in film", receiving just 2.9 out of 5.

Are long courses more fun? More use?

By splitting the results above by the length of the course we see some interesting results.  Courses lasting three or more years were rated as...

• The most fun

• The least likely to be taught by film / media professionals

• The least likely to prepare students for a career in film (although the most likely to prepare them for other "media" professions).

This could be due to the fact that dedicated film schools tend to offer courses of between one and two years, whereas many universities offer courses of at least three years.  As my previous research shows, film schools tend to be more focused on the employability of graduates within the film industry, while university courses tend to contain more theory-based work.

"What could be done to improve your course?"

I gave the students space to provide ideas for how their course may be improved. Over a quarter of all students said they wanted an increased awareness of industry practice.  Film graduates felt that their course had not prepared them for the realities of the industry, and this sentiment was also echoed by current film students who did not feel they were being prepared for employment. The second most suggested improvement was that students want a greater number of practical workshops, assessments and opportunities to create their own work.  A significant portion of them explicitly stated that they felt they had been misled by the course outline in respect to the practical content of their course. The students that complained about the quality of teaching focused on four main areas...

• A lack of teachers with professional experience

• A lack of enthusiasm and engagement

• A lack of contact hours and access to teachers

• A lack of consistency due to a high turnover of staff

Many of these respondents suggested that the issue with teaching is not quality across the board but rather consistency of quality. Another general trend was that students want a greater number of specialised modules and greater control over the content of their courses and, in particular, the option to choose specific modules later on.  This suggests that despite the huge number of courses being offered around the UK, students still struggle to find courses that they want. Only four students mentioned that the course should cost less, which is surprising given the large fees charged by many film schools. The most common themes within the comments were... [table id=55 /] Finally, in answer to the question "What could your course have done better?" 11 students simply responded with a variant of “everything”.

What do film students think about the head of their school?

I asked the students about the heads of their school or department.  Over half of respondents believe that their head is doing a good job.

The most common comment given in support of the head doing a good job was to note their positive personality traits or characteristics. These traits tended to be approachability, knowledge and hard-work. 31% of respondents suggested that close engagement with the running of the school is important and it was a common reason given for whether their head was doing a good job (i.e. closely involved) or bad job (i.e. distant and not involved). 35% of students suggested that industry/ practical knowledge, links and teaching are important. There were 20 occurrences of it being listed as a positive comment and 17 as a negative comment. In a number of cases, these complaints referred specifically to a lack of industry experience by the Head of School and the impact this was having on their studies. This was the case with academics at universities more regularly than with industry professionals at film schools. Common complaints from students were...

• The head is not primarily focused on students

• Their primary focus is profit

• Conflict of interests or competition for time with the head’s personal and professional projects

Broadly-speaking, the students' comments can be used to create two main types of head of school: academics and industry professionals.  Each has their own drawbacks...

• Academics often lack industry/practical experience and students tend to feel this is reflected in the course content.

• Industry professionals have other projects and commitments which seem to supersede the school, and so the standard of teaching and their involvement in the school suffers.

Do film students know what's need to get hired in film and TV?

Last summer I surveyed a large number of employers from within the film and TV industries.  One of the questions I asked them was "How important are the following factors in deciding which candidate you employ".  I asked a very similar question to my film student respondents to see if the students have a clear idea of what will be required of them as new entrants. Overall, the film students undervalued the significance of having a driving licence and overestimated the value of all other factors.

It should be noted that the employers listed above are all UK employers, hence why speaking foreign languages is of little value to them.  International employers rated it much higher, as I showed here.

Methodology

The survey of student opinions was performed with the help of Raindance, Talent Circle, Shooting People, My First Job in Film and Chris Jones.  I am grateful to them for their support in helping me reach films students past and present. I also used targeted Facebook adverts to reach possible respondents. My survey included a total of 485 respondents, of which 270 were graduate film students and 48 were current film students.  In this context, 'film student' refers to people on full-time film courses in the UK, lasting at least one year.  I have not presented the findings from the remaining 167 non-film students / graduates in today's article for reasons of space.  In the future, I may write a piece on the difference in opinions on the film industry between students studying film and those studying non-film topics.

Notes and Caveats

It is worth bearing the following notes and caveats in mind when considering the data I am presenting today...

• Highly subjective.  Today's research is based on opinions, rather than objective fact, and so all of the findings should be read as such.

• Having enough information. As many students admit, they lack enough information on the role of the head (how much control they actually have, what decisions they are responsible for or not, etc). This means comments are often based on personal experiences of the head or simply speculation.

• There is no 'typical' film school. Today's data covers a wide range of types of institution, ranging from Universities to Film Schools. These different institutions often have different leadership structures, so heads have very different requirements and constraints. As such, this data conflates two different types of head of school.

• Representative of students at large. It's hard to know how representative the views of my respondents are of all film students. I surveyed 317 students, which equates to about 0.6% of the total number of students studying film in the UK in 2012.

Epilogue

Next week will be the final installment of my UK film school study, where I will address the ways in which UK film education could be improved.

Key Findings - Optimism in the global film industry

• 65% of the respondents think that business will be better in 2014 than 2013.

• Only 9% feel that 2014 will be worse than 2013.

• The most optimistic sectors are Development and Post-Production.

• The most pessimistic sectors are Sales & Distribution and Exhibition.

• There was almost no difference in the level of optimism across budget ranges

How optimistic is the industry about the future?

Breakdown by sector

Breakdown by budget level

About the survey

The survey involved 1,235 film industry professionals, all of whom have attended at least one of the three major film markets (Cannes, Berlin or AFM) within the past five years.  I asked questions on a variety of hot topics including piracy, the appeal of 3D, gender, and how optimistic industry professionals are for 2014. More details of the survey and my methodology can be found here and for any  questions or clarification please contact me.