Cinedigm CEO Chris McGurk broke from the traditional gloom and doom many Los Angeles Film Festival keynoters have expressed regarding the future of showbiz. Noting that one previous speaker said, “and I quote: “The sky really is falling”, McGurk pointed out that “the only thing Hollywood has done better than building an industry is predicting its imminent demise.” Once again “doomsayers seem to be proclaiming the Seven Signs of the coming Indie Apocalypse” but McGurk said he sees “the Seven Signs of its Renaissance” — thanks to lower production and distribution costs because of the “digital revolution.” Despite having what he described a reputation as being “a suit” he said “I think I’ve actually become somewhat of a softie in regard to at least one aspect of the film business. Somewhere along my corporate ride in Hollywood, I fell in love with independent film.” McGurk sees enormous targeted opportunities for filmmakers, distributors, marketers and exhibitors. And variety that can satisfy broadly different kinds of people who love movies.
Summarized and paraphrased, here is McGurk’s speech:
My current role again has me highly focused on independent film, as chairman and and CEO of Cinedigm, an end-to-end digital distribution company for indie content. Digital distribution is a godsend, McGurk maintains, and not the enemy as some content.
“It is estimated that by the end of THIS year over 80% of theaters in the U.S., and over 60 percent of theaters in the world will be digital. For you, the audience, the big advantage of digital theaters is that every print is as pristine as the ones that studio executives see in their screening rooms. And those digital prints will ALWAYS remain that way. No more movie experiences where the images are so scratched, the entire movie looks like the climactic scene in The Shawshank Redemption.
But, digital goes way beyond improving the look of films. It will soon be key to delivering a far greater and more vibrant variety of content into theaters.
The studio system deteriorated in the 1960s because the huge overhead of backlot filmmaking was making movies prohibitively expensive. Expenses soared again in the early 1990s resulting in 1991′s Katzenberg Memo, which cautioned against what he called the Blockbuster Mentality that was driving runaway production costs. He was motivated to write the memo because of the enormous budget of the Disney film, Dick Tracy, which cost a grand total of … $46 million.”
These days, the major studios consider $46 million an arthouse budget. Tentpole film productions routinely run $250-$300 million, with marketing costs to match. As a result, even major blockbusters are only generating single-digit returns. And when one of those films tanks, the write-offs can be devastating, and we have seen a couple of instances of that recently.
…
There a signs that this business cycle is once again repeating itself, setting the stage for the Seven Signs of the Renaissance of Independent Film, which I would now like to share with you.Sign Number One: The Production Revolution. High-resolution digital cameras and computers mean that the cost of of making a theatrical quality movie has plummeted.
Sign Number Two: The Distribution Revolution
Just like the indie boom of the 80s and 90s, new forms of distribution are central to the coming resurgence. Digital is the friend and not the enemy of the filmgoing experience. It has done much more than give you scratch-free prints. It is also the enabler of Sign Number One – the drop in production costs. And it is underpinning Sign Number Two, which is completely transforming distribution.
First of all, there is digital distribution into theaters. Massive numbers of film prints — at $1200 a pop plus freight charges — are no longer necessary. The process has been replaced by satellite and hard-drive delivery at less than one-tenth the cost.
The impact of digital distribution goes far beyond the theaters … and into the home and mobile platforms. There is cable and satellite Video on Demand, Amazon, iTunes, Xbox, Hulu, Vudu, Netflix, TVOD, AVOD, FVOD, SVOD, regular VOD — All those VOD acronyms that everyone talks about and very few understand what they really mean.
This “digital revolution” means that, just as happened in the ’80s, there is an exploding demand for filmed entertainment and huge competition among digital retailers. It’s an “arms race” to ensure that each one has a high quantity of high quality content to drive viewership, whether ad-supported, subscription-driven or transactional.
Margin Call as a landmark example. It wasreleased last October 21 on just 199 screens. That same day, it was also released on VOD, allowing in-home viewing for about $8. Two months later, it was put out on DVD. The movie cost $3.5 million to make and took in $4 million on VOD, $5 million in domestic theaters and another $5 million internationally. So it was solidly profitable before it even went into other ancillary markets… something that rarely happens with major studio releases. Margin Call provides a glimpse of the kinds of distribution opportunities that are now available for independent films.
The coming renaissance of indie film will be advanced by the same driver that propelled the first one in the ’60s – lower production costs – and also the same driver behind the second one in the ‘80s – expanded distribution platforms. That’s an incredibly powerful combination.
On to the third sign: Big Talent is Into Small Films. There’s been a very interesting phenomenon underway recently. Bigger and bigger stars are willing to make smaller and smaller films. In addition to Margin Call, which starred Kevin Spacey, Demi Moore and Jeremy Irons, there’s Bernie with Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine and Matthew McConaughey, or Hysteria with Maggie Gyllenhaal, or A Dangerous Method with Keira Knightley and Viggo Mortensen or Melancholia with Kirsten Dunst or the upcoming 360 with Jude Law and Anthony Hopkins or The Paperboy with Nicole Kidman, John Cusack, Zac Efron and Matthew McConaughey.
Major talent behind the camera is also attracted to indie production, including directors such as Ron Howard, Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aranofsky, and screenwriters like Scott Frank, Mark Boal and Peter Morgan.
One reason is the dramatic drop in the total number of theatrical releases. In 2010, about 100 fewer movies with budgets above $1 million were produced than in 2008. This is almost a 25% decline. Unavoidably, fewer movies result in fewer jobs. Talent at all levels has to look beyond the major studios for work.
Secondly, the emphasis on big budget comic book films has actually reduced the demand for big name actors. When you’re counting on Thor to open a movie, you don’t need Tom Cruise.
Third, actors want to, well, act. So, even if they get a high-profile part playing a Marvel character, they often still want to take on the challenge of something less … muscular. So, many are willing to take serious pay cuts for the chance to play a more complex, challenging and less mainstream role.
All of this increases the viability of independent films.
Then there is the Fourth Sign of the Indie Renaissance: Exhibitors want independent films … desperately. Less than 5% of seats are occupied in theaters Monday through Thursday … and only about 15% on an annualized basis. Yes, over a 12-month period, movie theaters are 85% empty! This resulted in the two largest theater chains – AMC and Regal – forming a new indie studio, Open Road Films.
Exhibitors also will need to be more flexible about release and DVD windows. Blockbuster franchises need a longer theatrical window, but indie films that are released on a few hundred screens need quicker transition to ancillary markets to survive.
Which brings me to the Fifth Sign of the Indie Renaissance: Narrowcasting. For the right program and the right price, those empty seats can be filled and that popcorn can be sold. He cited the record-breaking performance of The Avengers. An incredible 22 million people in the U.S. and Canada saw the film during its first week. But that leaves 323 million people who didn’t!
There are a whole lot of people who aren’t so excited about watching highly pain-tolerant men save the world. They are instead interested in a wide variety of other subjects that they’d like to see up on the big screen. Look at the success of live, digitally-delivered productions of the Metropolitan Opera, which have been booked into targeted theaters near where opera-lovers live. Or, at the other end of the branding spectrum, there is the Kidtoons series, which our company distributes, that are targeted to children and their families and play exclusively at weekend matinees.
The creative possibilities are endless: Action sports series, comedy nights, educational extension programs during the day, ballet, Broadway and other cultural programming, and so on. The idea is to fill seats by precisely aligning content with avid audiences in a communal setting.
In essence, the strategy is to program a targeted digital theater footprint by day and daypart almost like a TV network.
And it doesn’t have to be top-down programming. There are innovative new services like Tugg, Gathr and Cinedigm’s own crowd-sourcing platform that allow people to vote online for content they’d like to see in theaters. Once enough people sign on, the movie is booked and seats get filled.
All of this will require a modification of expectations on the part of filmmakers. They have been conditioned to believe that getting “validation” for their films requires a release into more than 500 screens. That model rarely works anymore because it’s very unlikely there will be a financial return on the cost of the big national TV media buy that’s required to support such a wide release.
The new narrowcast release strategy, combined with the kind of creative windowing we saw with Margin Call, will get filmmakers access to more eyeballs under an economic model that is more likely to generate real rewards.
Of course, narrowcasting won’t replace blockbuster filmmaking. The 20 million people who want to see Avengers 10 during opening week can still get their fix. But there are millions more who want something else. And they want to see it together in a theater. We can give it to them.
The Sixth Sign of the Indie Renaissance complements the Fifth: Targeted Marketing
Once you narrowcast into a theater, it is invaluable to then use targeted marketing to make the right people aware that the right programming for them is in their local theater.
And the best tool for doing this is social media.
Or, let me put it this way – Those of you who bought the Facebook IPO, hold on to your stock. Social media is still the future.
And movie marketers have a big advantage in this space. Just consider old-fashioned TV commercials. Nowadays, millions of people speed through them on DVRs. However, there’s one kind of commercial for which viewers regularly hit the stop button on their DVR – ads for upcoming movies.
This is because everybody hates commercials, but everybody loves movies. That’s why people stop to watch the spots for upcoming films. And that’s why people will also stop what they’re doing on a computer or mobile device to click on an appealing piece of movie marketing.
And that brings me to the Seventh Sign of the Indie Renaissance:
More dollars … and, by the way, more euros and yen and pounds and pesos and rubles. Because, make no mistake about it, the same hopeful signs that we are now seeing at work in this country are at work around the world.
I’m sure you’ve all heard the truism that cinema exists at the intersection of commerce and art. Well, I’m originally a numbers guy and, in our business, there’s a foolproof equation: More commerce equals more art.
So, if you like the art of film, you should like anything that helps the commerce of film. And that’s what all of the other six signs of the Indie Renaissance do: They help generate more of the money filmmakers need to make films.
• The first sign makes it cheaper to shoot a film,
• the second makes it easier and more efficient to distribute a film on multiple platforms,
• the third brings in bigger stars to act in a film and better writers and directors to create it,
• the fourth addresses exhibitor demand for independent film,
• the fifth makes it possible to narrowcast a film into high-yield theaters,
• and the sixth allows for targeted marketing directly to the people most likely to go see a film.All of these add up to a more profitable business, which inevitably adds up to a more productive and expanded business. Which means that, as in the first golden age of independent film that started in the late ‘60s and in the second one that started in the late ‘80s, all of you movie lovers will have more movies to love at the multiplex … or on your TV or your computer or your iPad … or other devices yet to come that will provide even more digital canvasses for today’s cinematic artists.
Because we’re dealing with a bright Renaissance and not a dark Armageddon, I’m going to depart from apocalyptic tradition and add an eighth sign.
It’s really nothing new, and that’s why it’s so important. I hinted at it when I was talking about marketing, and it’s simply this: People love the movies.
This is why the Oscar broadcast is still one of the highest-rated shows every year.
This is why magazine covers still feature movie stars. This is why, even with our big-screen high-def, surround-sound TVs, we still want to go out to watch a movie in the dark with a bunch of strangers who BOND with us over the film… laughing, crying, being scared together … in a social experience that is almost tribal in nature.So, I will confidently predict that we are about to see cinema history repeat itself yet again. In the past, whether it was the arrival of sound or TV or home video, each time new technology came on the scene, it was initially viewed as the enemy. Instead, each time it led to new paradigms of success. I am confident that the same will be true of digital technology … and the sky will continue to remain right up there where it belongs.


Hallelujuh?
McGurk makes it sound like using Digital is something new and fresh that is going to create a renaissance.
Point by Point:
1. Great for filmmakers to be able to make movies on digital, but, also a LOT of very poor looking digital filmmaking.
2. Nice to have no scratches. NOT so nice to have poorer resolution digital over properly projected film prints. I like to see real blacks, not fuzzy greys. This is the first time that we have less quality in a new generation of technology.
3. Digital has little to do with actors wanting to act. What? Are they less intimidated by smaller cameras so they come out and play more often?
4. Again nothing new here.
5. Perhaps an easier and cheaper way of delivering alternate programming, but there were closed circuit boxing matches in the 70s.
6.OK. But, social media has been around for quite a few years already.
7. Again fine. But, new?
” This is the first time that we have less quality in a new generation of technology”
Um what? Heard an mp3 lately? This is what people want – they will sacrifice quality for ubiquity, ease, and price. Get used to it. That’s why Apple is so unique by the way. They go seriously against the grain.
Uh, yeah, of course I have heard and listen to MP3′s. You’re making my point for me. MP3′s sound even worse than CD’s, which in turn were inferior to analog. I didn’t say those formats weren’t commercially successful – just inferior in quality.
This generation is the first that is settling for regression in quality for the sake of convenience. Usually, technological advances PROGRESS quality, not reverse it.
This revolution has already happened in audio (I have news – record companies: profitable) and it took 15 years to figure it out. (also: mp3s)
Now its Hollywood’s turn. He is exactly right – if you make films aimed at audiences you can identify, then its a lot cheaper to make and market. I’m often stunned at the level of actor willing to work with my tiny budgets. The numbers do work. Look at Marigold Hotel – that nailed its release strategy perfectly.
His main point I couldn’t agree with more: there are a LOT of people still trying to survive in the indie film biz of 1995. And the same films! That business is beyond dead. But when standard water-cooler talk is between switching off HBO so they can pay for Netflix (an actual discussion I overheard outside the industry) then yes, a viable entry point into the home is there to be exploited by the right product, made for the right price.
You will still need to be smart, and limber to survive. But that’s been true since the early 1900s.
I worked with Mcgurk and Bingham Ray and Sarah Rose back at UA. It was clear then that this was the part of the business that mattered. We were all upset when MGM was sold because we felt the division was just getting its feet on the ground as an independent voice. We had done No Man’s Land and Saved , Hotel Rwanda and had just finished Capote at that point. The new owners of MGM then got out of the independent business. They sold UA to Tom Cruise and he made Lions For Lambs! I hope Chris is right with this message. But the independents are still in deep trouble right now.
I saw the speech on You Tube. Well done, thoughtful and extremely positive. A very smart man with the courage to address the naysayers. And he has been involve in many incredible indie films as he lists in the speech. My favorites are The Visitor and Capote. Engineers and Cinematographers can debate the minutia of technology in terms of the look on the screen but it is the cost savings and ease of use that opens doors for new talent to get their films made these days. That’s the point.
A man with a brilliant track record of zero hits and failing upwards is gonna lecture on the state of Hollywood… Ummm. Okay.
Yeah, isn’t this the dude who ran MGM into to the ground and then was given a 400 million check to make films with at overture and was so far off the mark on his choices over there that they have suspended business?
I wish sucked as much at my job as this cat does if thats what perpetual failing gets you.
I was at MGM in TV sales at the time with McGurk and Yemenidjian Far from running it into the ground, they built it up and sold it for $5 billion. We had a successful group of films also. Legally Blonde and Thomas Crowne and Hannibal and the Bond films and Barbershop and even a strong independent string like Columbine and Rwanda and Capote. Our library was doing over $500mil a year in free cash. The new owners of the Company were Sony and bankers and then Harry Sloan who then ran it into the ground.
Agree with the last two. Yes, the whiners always attack under cover of anonymity. it is sad that when the business needs to come together people just come out and rant and call names and make things up. Disgruntled, unemployed and sad people. It is not easy to put your name out there and try to make sense of things in an event like Chris McGurk did. Good for him. “kid a” , after you flip the fries at your local Mickey D’s maybe you can give your thoughts on righting the business to Mom tonight before it is time for Dungeons and Dragons, huh? Pathetic.
You are full of it. I was at the keynote and he went through his films in the independent space. Very impressive list just there. The Visitor was one at Overture that was the best thing they did. At MGM if you check they were very successful. Kerkorian made billions and they revived Bond and had Hannibal and Legally Blonde. I did work on the studio side so maybe I am defensive. But it seems people like you lash out in a bitter and jealous way because you are losers who cannot get anything going. So listen instead of foolishly attacking at anything a studio person ever says. Also, get a job in a business where you can work, you will be less bitter.
JoeS you’re exactly right. I love how Hollywood types try to take credit for stating the obvious. Had this unimpressive revelation come from an outsider, they’d consider it ranting. I’ve been saying for quite sometime now that what this industry needs is discourse. Maybe they’ve finally heard enough “ranting”. Of course now, they haven’t got much of a choice since they’re losing millions at the box office. The gall of these schmucks is sometimes more entertaining than their movies.
So what does that make your gall June?
The movie industry doesn’t need ‘discourse’. It tends to do better the fewer opinions involved in filmaking.
It needs better films, aimed directly at the people who want to see them. It needs showmen. That’s his point.
Totally agree with the Mcg on this. Why?
I’ll be damned if I’m going to let the Hollywood Powers that be — and all their
gravy train for decades lap dogs tell me I can’t write and direct my own, commercially successful indie genre movies, global audiences will be happy to watch…from the
global reach thru digital distribution, and not just American theatrical, just because:
1) I don’t shoot on film
2) I don’t have an agent
3) I don’t have stars
But, then, even after graduating film school; having lit. managers at one time;
selling a few low budget specs and crewing on indie features to learn as much as
possible about the nuts and bolts of logistics of movie making — in essence,
learning how to be frugal and responsible with someone else’s money — they never
quite taught me in film school…there is still a matter of all the politics and personality b.s. of the Hollywood system.
And going the digital route on my own?
Cuts all that out of the way.
More than enough good to great characters actors to use…who really want to play
great characters in great scenes.
More than enough study of the movie genre categories and visually driven narrative known as screenwriting to pull it off successfully.
All the work and responsibility is soley on me.
Of course…I do understand the reasoning behind the Hollywood system for decrying the digital revolution from day one for outsiders like myself:
1) Money! Why let a content creator, a business artist, a storyteller working in the medium of movies from the outside…get a slight piece of the pie? Cut them out of the marketing tie ins from property spin offs, etc.
2) Power! Yeah…just keep getting frustrated at the idiocy of the CATCH 22, every reader and exec and assistant scaling the Hollywood ladder throws at you on every level possible.
And eventually…they know you’ll leave.
3) Competition — the best of the best!
Don’t you just love American capitalism working at its finest?
Why let competition in the marketplace, soley rely on whoever brings the best economically viable product to the marketplace? When relationships are more important
than the product itself?
4) Film…don’t you just love that look? It’s everything.
Yeah…guess it’s in the presentation and packaging and not the story itself.
Might as well get rid of the Oscars for screenwriting and just stay with best cinematography.
Guess ROCK OF AGES proves me wrong, huh?
1) You’ve never made anything worth releasing on 1 screen, much less around the world.
2) Given your huge, narcissistic, fatuous attitude, you probably never will.
Finally someone in a position of power has put things in perspective for everyone else. I think all of this “end of the world” talk has gone to everybody’s heads.
It’s a relief Chris McGurk made the correlation with the events of today and the occurrences of talkies, television, & home video. Each time the industry was doom and gloom about the future, and each time the industry reinvented itself to make MORE MONEY than it ever had previously.
You can fight the change, or embrace it. For those of you not willing to evolve, you will be greatly missed while the rest of us are making movies and TV.
“It is estimated that by the end of THIS year over 80% of theaters in the U.S., and over 60 percent of theaters in the world will be digital.”
— Gee, Mr. McGurk, how about that 20%… That’s 9,000 – 10,000 screens that will most likely be put out of business as most are in small towns across America and can’t afford the transition from film to digital.
Dear Theater Owner,
You’re in a tough business, everyone recognizes this. It’s expensive to run theaters these days and there’s no question the pipelines in our industry are changing.
We’re all fighting to retain our pieces of the revenue pie in an increasingly challenging economy, and with a distribution and marketing landscape that seems to be loaded with questions and few informed answers.
As a producer, one of the ways I protect my investors is by reducing our costs to increase our potential profit margins. Another is by releasing our product on as many platforms as possible (day and date) to amortize and maximize our marketing dollars. Both of these tactics involve digital platforms and non-traditional thinking. Certainly, different projects call for different strategies. However, for the majority of independent films being made these days, these seem to be key ingredients in the recipe for realizing success.
Chris McGurk isn’t making the rules. He’s just stating the facts. The world is changing, our industry is changing with it. Nothing is static, forever, or permanent. We either shift with the tides or we may find ourselves extinct.
Exactly. Very well said and right on point.
I’ve seen 3 movies digital video projected and all three times my eyes hurt and the image moved jerkily. It doesn’t work for me and I refuse to sit through another video projected theatrical experience.
Chris can talk all he wants, but the simple fact is that if it hurts my eyes, I’m not watching it.
And nothing says movies are doomed more than a double feature of “Jack and Jill” and “That’s My Boy.” Explain those cinematic duds, McGurk.
Read his speech idiot! Those are 2 examples of the kind of dreck the major studios are producing. They have nothing to do with independent film at all.