A point for the argument of why film festivals are an important part of the ecosystem, and also, perhaps, why we should be looking at longer theatrical windows — to protect the power of word-of-mouth! Thanks for this!
Building on this, it's fair to say that this data here would correlate most strongly with films being released by studios in a traditional windowing strategy. Indie films don't necessarily have the opportunity to generate reviews like this way in advance because media doesn't really cover indies outside of a few very specific windows. Most films have three opportunities in which to snag reviews: festival, premiere and release. Indie films may only have one or two if they are lucky. I too would love to have a longer discussion about the need for more indie film coverage and as GG pointed out why the festival eco system still matters! As a filmmaker and someone who does marketing and PR for indie films for my day job, this is constantly on my mind!
I would love to see a data study on who reviews true independent movies. Where does that happen - if at all? Is that an untapped market/readership? What happened to film criticism? etc., etc.
My definition would include films not backed by a studio or distributor, films that are made without presales and made under a sub $1MM budget. A24 and Neon films are called "indie" films but those companies have huge valuations and large budgets for production and P&A, with access to funds most filmmakers don't have.
Kla's answer is pretty good but I would lower the budget threshold considerabily. For the US independent, 50K is more realistic. Yes, you read that well: 50,000 max.
Also, how about self-funded or crowd-funded movies with no 'names' as added parameters. Meaning not even the 'executive producers' added way past post-production just to 'anoint' the movie. Zero names.
I saw a number of truly good and sometimes great movies at US regional festivals or secondary international festivals and they were nowhere in the press. In itself this is not surprising as mainstream publications only focus on big titles, but why bloggers with no obligations do the same? Is there anyone paying attention to the many excellent movies that could not find a glitzy A-list festival premiere?
The answer cannot be "because these movies are not distributed so why wasting time reviewing them?": these movies end up on Amazon like the rest. it's just that they have no coverage. To me, this seems to be a tremendous waste. I'm sure there is a readership and viewership for those, they just need to be "re-valued".
A point for the argument of why film festivals are an important part of the ecosystem, and also, perhaps, why we should be looking at longer theatrical windows — to protect the power of word-of-mouth! Thanks for this!
Building on this, it's fair to say that this data here would correlate most strongly with films being released by studios in a traditional windowing strategy. Indie films don't necessarily have the opportunity to generate reviews like this way in advance because media doesn't really cover indies outside of a few very specific windows. Most films have three opportunities in which to snag reviews: festival, premiere and release. Indie films may only have one or two if they are lucky. I too would love to have a longer discussion about the need for more indie film coverage and as GG pointed out why the festival eco system still matters! As a filmmaker and someone who does marketing and PR for indie films for my day job, this is constantly on my mind!
I would love to see a data study on who reviews true independent movies. Where does that happen - if at all? Is that an untapped market/readership? What happened to film criticism? etc., etc.
Good idea. How would you define "true independent movies"?
My definition would include films not backed by a studio or distributor, films that are made without presales and made under a sub $1MM budget. A24 and Neon films are called "indie" films but those companies have huge valuations and large budgets for production and P&A, with access to funds most filmmakers don't have.
Kla's answer is pretty good but I would lower the budget threshold considerabily. For the US independent, 50K is more realistic. Yes, you read that well: 50,000 max.
Also, how about self-funded or crowd-funded movies with no 'names' as added parameters. Meaning not even the 'executive producers' added way past post-production just to 'anoint' the movie. Zero names.
I saw a number of truly good and sometimes great movies at US regional festivals or secondary international festivals and they were nowhere in the press. In itself this is not surprising as mainstream publications only focus on big titles, but why bloggers with no obligations do the same? Is there anyone paying attention to the many excellent movies that could not find a glitzy A-list festival premiere?
The answer cannot be "because these movies are not distributed so why wasting time reviewing them?": these movies end up on Amazon like the rest. it's just that they have no coverage. To me, this seems to be a tremendous waste. I'm sure there is a readership and viewership for those, they just need to be "re-valued".