The latest evidence is the amazing success of the new iTunes video service.
“Selling one million videos in less than 20 days strongly suggests there is a market for legal downloads,” Steve Jobs, Apple CEO, said in a statement. “Our next challenge is to broaden our content offerings.”
Now that’s interesting. If Apple starts distributing independent films, a lot of things could change.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Another possible source of independent-film distribution might be the cable operators (and telcos) who are pushing video-on-demand services. I’ve heard that they’ve had difficulty in attractive licensing mainline content.
I disagree Roger. Sat through the following trailers: Shopgirl, Bee Season, Squid and the Whale, Loggerheads, and Capote. Seriously, I’d PAY NOT to see any of those films. I’d pay not to see the trailers.
Independent films = no story, no plot, bad acting, unlikable characters and “cool” ideas. I don’t think downloadable video will help or hurt independent films; people who want to see them already can. Most likely they will just see them (and every other film) in different ways. Look at Independent music. ITunes didn’t do much to change them; just shift the channel from College Stations and independent music retailers to College Stations and ITunes.
Independent films = no story, no plot, bad acting, unlikable characters and “cool” ideas.
You say that like it was a bad thing.
Seriously, with an indipendent distribution channel and a “long tail”, it’s likely there will be lots more films being done … it’s almost inevitable that some new quality producing and direction will come out of that. (Just re-saw Batman Begins last night. Best Batman movie ever. The director got his start with a film that undoubtedly cost more to distribute than produce, because it apparently cost $3.17 and a couple of subway tokens to produce. How many Nolans are there who haven’t put together The Deal?)
Jim—
What was it that you paid to see?
This is macro because more people are interested in the product. The same thing has happened in a micro way already in many areas of retail on the internet that started out with only free stuff and/or piracy. Now there are booming businesses that only sell the stuff. And, because money can be made, more and more product is coming out.
Same principles involved. Including copyrights. The results are the same. Why should anyone be surprised?
Is it really true that some of the great stars like Bogart were outspoken about their political views? I’ve always thought that the studios closely controlled their stars’ lifestyles and interaction with the press because they were afraid of alienating any of the movie-going public.
Just checked the Wikipedia entry on Bogart and found this:
Bogart relied on his standing with his fellow actors to organize a delegation who went to Washington, D.C., during the height of McCarthyism, to protest the House Unamerican Activities Committee’s harassment of Hollywood writers and actors. Bogart was not, however, prepared to deal with the industry pressure to abandon this campaign; within a year he disavowed his activities, retreating to his role as actor and apologizing for speaking out on politics.
Anyone know if that’s reliable information?