My last post entitled “Distribution Backwards?” really ignited something….. I got some messages on Twitter as well as feedback on the Film Specific Facebook page that indicates people do NOT like the idea of:
1. reverse engineering WRITING since all you’ll get is focus group ideas/formula, and
2. following a ‘trend’ too closely because by the time the film comes out, the trend could be over
These are all interesting points and I totally agree with both of them. What I realized is that I didn’t communicate my original intent of the “Distribution Backwards” concept very clearly. So thanks to you all for making me realize that!
The whole concept of Distribution In Reverse in my opinion is not so much about just copying what’s out there and writing for focus groups, it has more to do with actually preparing for Distribution during each stage of production. For example, at the idea/script stage YES you should look at what genres and cast are selling, but it doesn’t have to be taken so literally. Just think of it as market research. And like one poster on Facebook said, it’s more about dissecting stories from a psychological POV and asking “WHY is it working?”, and then implementing that into your story. Very aptly put.
So back to my Distribution In Reverse principle…. what I want to emphasize here is that this concept is more about really preparing for distribution during every stage of production. So everything from engaging your audience early, to casting the right actors, to implementing the right campaign, to looking realistically at budget levels and recoupment schedules, to preparing deliverables, and strategizing festivals.
THAT’s what I wanted to communicate. Simply the importance of really ‘injecting’ distribution into the entire filmmaking process, NOT making the mistake of just haphazardly making a film and just starting to think about
distribution after it’s completed. No way will that go over well in today’s market.
So hopefully this clears up any confusion about what I meant when I spoke about Distribution Backwards in the previous post, and once again I’d love to hear your thoughts on how you can apply these principles to YOUR film.
Related Posts:
|
Share the Love
|
Newsletter Sign-Up
|
...founder of 
Totally agree. And thanks for quoting my description on dissecting the psychology of “why is it working.”
I agree so much with what you have stated months ago, that I’ve been trying to apply it to my own work.
Anyone who applies this concept will be ahead of the curve. They have to think of their film from an investors POV. Why should this film make money? If you’ve already figured out the distribution/marketing at the begining stages, then the argument will be solved or at least not such an issue with investors. When your film becomes a magnet, drawing in interest prior to production, you become a “force to be recononded with.”
When I read the initial blog, I too had a strong reaction to the implication that reverse engineering distribution demanded writing by numbers. However, almost immediately, I shook off that first impression and completely grasped the meaning of the posting.
We want to believe that we work in a completely free creative environment. That whatever stories we make up, we will be able to have them translated to the screen and get an audience to watch them. But we forget that we actually work in an industry–a highly commercial business–and with lots of creative leeway, we must still know how to function within a certain (and constantly evolving) business model.
Does that mean that as a writer, I must only write what has already been written and tell the same old and tired stories? Of course not. Clearly, that is what you were suggesting at all. There is plenty of room for imagination.
The most powerful writers are the ones who can write to an audience–meaning those writers who understand the business of making and distributing films. Let’s not kid ourselves, we want as many people as possible to watch our films, a) for the sheer pleasure of connecting with an audience, and b) in order to be given the opportunity to tell more stories. It is irresponsible of writers not to consider the audience (niche or general market), and to do everything in their power to ensure that they’re being both creative and practical at the same time.
Recently, while tackling the shooting draft of a screenplay for a feature film that is fully cast and that I intend to produce this year, I was faced with the budgetary reality that a sequence that I had written would cost a significant amount of money. This signified that greater financing needed to be raised, and additional box office receipts needed to be collected in order to pay back my investors and realize any profits.
I could have argued with myself that the scene as written was perfect and necessary. It would have been a convincing argument. But since I am also the producer with a solid understanding of the current state of affairs in the business, I had to be practical about the matter and go back to the drafting table for that scene. This is an art house project targeted at two niche markets. If I don’t take that into consideration, I have no business writing or producing this or any other film.
In the end, during the rewriting process, the script didn’t suffer. That is, in fact, why I am a writer. I needed to dissect the scene psychologically and find other imaginative and visually stimulating ways in which to convey the same information, remaining within our budgetary parameters. And, of course, I found the way. Nothing has been sacrificed artistically in the process, I am happy to say, and I found that the challenge was exciting and hardly insurmountable.
So, Stacey, thanks for keeping it real. Your wise words ought not land on deaf ears nor discourage anyone from succeeding creatively and financially in the business.
“Keeping it real”… That’s the by-words… The balance between a writer’s ideas and a producer’s checkbook.