ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years ago - Marlom Tander

Karel - but doesn't that bring you full circle? WAB have the portal that provides a service for a price.

The WAB model assumes that the festivals are not price sensitive, and they seem not to care too much about the cost to film makers.

Festivals needs to net X, so it does the calc taking into account WAB fees and charges X+Y.

Film Freeway has a marketing package that seems to assume that film festivals DO CARE about costs to makers. I.e. that a festival can only charge Z and that all portal costs are coming out of their possible returns, (making WAB look very expensive in comparision)

FF are pretty much as tight as possible on charges, so if festivals were keen to minimise costs to makers, they'd have blown WAB out of the water by now.

If makers care about this, they should all write to every festival they enter demanding that FF be an option for entry, and then use it.

cheers

10 years ago - Karel Bata

I find it irritating when fests using Withoutabox don't bother telling them that they've accepted your film - the only way it stays on iMDb is if a festival screens it. C'mon guys I paid the bloody fee...

10 years ago - Marlom Tander

Why do festivals use WAB?

In fact why do they use ANY such platform? Are film makers so lazy that they won't send packages to festivals outside the system. (If so, to me that sounds like a great way to filter out lazy filmmakers :-)

Why don't they simply say "upload a zipped package to our festival website?"

Or even, for those on crap uplinks "send your thumb drive the following snail mail..."

I'm curious because I (and any half competent Drupal person) could build a site that allows film makers to provide material to festivals on a user managed basis in a few days.

Indeed I'd be happy to do so (as it neatly fits another project I have planned) if I thought people might take it up. It wouldn't cost a lot to run (circa a grand a month for solid managed hosting and a couple hours a day site admin).

10 years ago - John Lubran

@Chris Bogle and @Timothy Chick. Ok perhaps I was being too grumpy. I would very much hope that any festival that's recognised as BAFTA or Oscar associated is credible, though I wouldn't take it for granted. There are of course a lot more than a dozen great festivals out there including London, Venice, Cannes, Berlin, Sundance and indeed a long list of respectable festivals from whom any film maker would be properly delighted to receive recognition. In my flawed curmudgeonly way I was making the point that there are also many festivals that are on the other end of the spectrum from whom an award might actually be something less welcome than a kick in the teeth.

It ought not be too difficult for film makers, who're not wearing rosy tinted spectacles, to discern the differences.

10 years ago - Karel Bata

You ship the thing physically??

$50 is only worth it for a prestigious festival. But if the fest is smaller, and where the charge is lower, and the whole thing is just sending them a Megaupload url for your DCP then I think it is.

Wouldn't you rather your film was seen by a group of enthusiasts in a film theatre? I cringe at the idea mine would only ever be seen on the net.

9 years, 12 months ago - Karel Bata

@Paddy Robinson-Griffin All very true, except...

£30 a pop doesn't sound like much, but if you're entering your film into a dozen festivals and you've bled out your last drop of cash to get it finished...

(And Withoutabox takes 20%!)

9 years, 12 months ago - Karel Bata

@Karel Bata Here's the LFF rates http://www.bfi.org.uk/lff/bfi-london-film-festival-2015-submissions

10 years ago - Karel Bata

I think most film-makers really don't know much about how the system works. Not that I really do, But what I'm learning sucks.

Withoutabox don't charge a price that's proportionate to the service they provide. But they got in first, are the biggest, and are attached to iMDb.

I think we'll see changes, but we can speed them up too, as you suggest.

10 years ago - Kays Alatrakchi

@Karel Bata

I dunno man. Honestly I feel like many many festivals are a bit of a scam. Poorly attended, poorly advertised, poorly run. It's not unusual for a filmmaker to spend more on festival submission fees than on making the actual short itself. Some of them can get ridiculously political too which doesn't help if you're an outsider or you don't have big names in your film. I'm wrapping up my second short so I'm definitely trying to figure out the best strategy as I move forward.

10 years ago - Kays Alatrakchi

@Anna Bogutskaya

I think that "some" festivals for "some" types of films can have the positive impact that you speak of. As filmmakers, we do ourselves a major disservice by constantly talking about the "exception" as if it's the "norm." The reality is that even getting into hugely influential festivals like Sundance or Cannes will likely not result in any noticeable impact on one's filmmaking aspirations. Every year, the films that do go on to get noticed and open some doors for the filmmakers are but a handful compared to the ones which get in (and a mind-numbingly small number compared to the amount of films actually produced in any given year).

So yes, some festivals can have a positive impact for some films.

10 years ago - Chris Bogle

I disagree. As a director trying to break in, acceptance into any Oscar or BAFTA nominated festival is hugely beneficial to me, and there are absolutely loads of them. Acceptance to those festivals gives me immediate access to funding for attendance and opportunity to promote myself (I received travel and accommodation funding to attend Cinequest this year), production funding (most funding agencies ask for two BAFTA/Oscar accredited festival acceptances) and training (the same). In terms of industry cred, yeah maybe Cinequest isn't going to give me the cred I'd get from Berlin, but it is going to get me enough to maybe fund the next step on the ladder.

C

10 years ago - Chris Bogle

@John Lubran I don't think you're being curmudgeonly - I can see your point and I kind of agree in one respect that it's becoming difficult to discern what's credible and what's not. There are the top tier festivals that are going to get you slap bang on producers' radars - the career makers. There are the second tiers which I mentioned above and which can give you confidence and a career boost.

But the little ones - and yeah there are loads of them - are also great and vital because they're offering even those who make little movies on their iPads an audience - which is both inspiring for new filmmakers and makes the whole industry feel a little less elitist. I think there'd be a problem if those festival credentials became overvalued by the industry adn the barriers to entry were removed, but I really don't see that happening. I still had to really fight my case for funding to attend Cinequest even though it was OSCAR accredited.

10 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

@Kays Alatrakchi 'A bit of a scam' is about right...

https://youtu.be/5x81ntGg5Ws (30 min BBC radio programme about Swansea Bay FF)

https://youtu.be/Zf6f6cIKvCQ (15' film which spurred it by American filmmakers who were upset, so made a film about it)

There is an industry in film aspiration.

10 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Indeed - I knew a guy who made a bloody awful film for a few grand. He set up a soundalike festival, deliberately coattailing some legit festi - something like 'The Los Angeles Official Internet Film Festival', or maybe it was 'International' instead of 'Internet', or 'Independent', maybe it was or wasn't 'Official', but I think you get the idea - it was deliberately misleading.

He entered his own film, he won the 'Jury Prize'. I don't know if there were any other entrants, but if there were, they were out of luck as the jury prize was already awarded before it started. Of course those 'award winning' laurels were *everywhere* over his blurb.

9 years, 12 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

@vasco de sousa I don't mind festivals charging a cover/entry fee - nothing outrageous, but sufficient to pay for some basic quality checks. Someone has to watch everything and act as gatekeeper for the next round where the programme can be curated. That is probably £15 for a feature just in somebody's time at NMW, then add on logistical costs etc. Sponsorship is more likely to be tied to prizes than costs.

The costs, though, are incidental - having any kind if entry fee helps producers concentrate and not just send everything they have. We all know that enthusiastic amateurs produce feature films in a weekend on an iPhone, so free entry means they may as well enter 10 unwatchable films instead of £30 making them puck their best one(s). It's not a perfect correlation, but films where £30 is a huge percentage of the budget are less likely to be watchable than ones where £30 is incidental and already factored into the film costs. Does this mean budgeted films stand a better chance if being in the festival? Yes, but not just because they have a few weeks entry fee, but because 100 professionals spent 6 months crafting it.

I'm sorry for the organisers of the festival you mention, but slightly ironic that you say festivals should not take a fee, then mention one that didn't take a fee, and was obviously not commercially viable. Maybe an entry fee would have controlled their costs and meant they were still running?

9 years, 12 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

May as well photocopy the old form and update it with a sharpie! And whilst you're there, you can do a copy for 2016 too ;-)

10 years ago - Kieron Clark

Firstly I should say that I don't work for Film Freeway, but have been very impressed by it as a user. In terms of design, functionality and ease of use, it's head and shoulders above Withoutabox. You can embed a Vimeo link with a password, easily upload photos and promo material, search festivals by admission fee and location, etc.

If any festival organisers are reading, I'd urge them to take a look at FF and consider it as an alternative to WAB. Not sure what the relative costs are on the festival side though.

9 years, 12 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

A film festival should make its money off audiences and sponsors.

The now defunct Welsh International Film Festival was free to enter, and there was a time when that was the norm (I guess too many digital entries put an end to that.)

The percentage of accepted films is probably better on specialist festivals, like regional dance festivals, where fewer submissions are eligible. They still need to be picky, but their audience and the judges both like the same genre.

10 years ago - Marlom Tander

Thought - from a festivals POV, assuming that they want to give proper consideration to entries and don't simply want to maximise their revenues, it might be that portals result in a flood of entries and a little time consuming hoop might actually be a filter?

Also, was the docx still valid? If so, then why fix it. But if it was all about 2013, then perhaps that tells you something useful about the festival and it's organization. If they charged fees and didn't have a great rep perhaps pass on them?

10 years ago - Karel Bata

I'm wondering it's worth pushing to get Film London to create a dedicated portal for London-based festivals. Or maybe the BFI for nationwide. It could become the focus of more co-ordinated festival marketing initiatives.

Thoughts?

10 years ago - Timothy Chick

I've noticed that there are an awful lot of festivals so would be interested in hearing form you John as to the ones that you think are worthwhile and any reasons for this. Otherwise I can imagine people spend a shed-load of time applying to one that are really not worth it.

Tim

10 years ago - Anna Bogutskaya

@Kays Alatrakchi
Jumping in here to play devil's advocate. I completely disagree that film festivals are becoming irrelevant. In fact, I'd say they are more and more necessary to provide a quality/thematic filter - and especially for short films, they can help filmmakers reach a wider audiences, attract industry people and engage filmmakers with each other's films.

Granted, there are huge festival scams out there (I've heard the exact same horror story about *that* LA short film festival, which turns out is actually an international network of fake fests), and I must admit I'm biased because I've worked at, organised and am friendly with many film festival folk. The amount of love, effort, time and care that goes into putting together a film festival (or any film event, for that matter) is no scam. Film fests have their own personality and agenda and programmers have their own voice. It's never just a question of "oh, that looks nice, I'll programme that". Sometimes, a brilliant film can be rejected not because of quality, but because it simply isn't right for that particular festival or doesn't compliment the festival's themes.

10 years ago - Marlom Tander

Amazon has no soul, never has, and if the portals only work because both Festivals and Filmmakers are using them mainly as a result of the "captive" effect, that provides a natural barrier to entry, because one side or the other has to decide to dump it and hope the others follow. Incumbency has it's advantages.

FilmFreeway looks interesting.

Good news - WAB is small beer to Amazon, so they might not fight back with their usual aggressive discounting.

The campaign should be that film makers use ANY alternative to WAB in order that Festivals realise that they don't need it.

10 years ago - Karel Bata

The idea of having a filter seems like a good idea. But forcing everyone to spend ages plowing through the .pdf rules - one sfest eemed to want the DCP uploaded as part of the application! - would surely put some people off when they can go through a portal click a few buttons and just pay a fee?

There's got to be a better way.

The .docx actually referred to 2013 dates. It's just idiotic to put something like that up without thinking about what happens the next year. And yes, it is run by a total wanker. But he gets money for his niche fest and certain 'names' attend (and we all moan behind his back) but it's good to get your stuff shown. Politics.

10 years ago - Kays Alatrakchi

While a good festival run for a film can (in some cases) be beneficial, we live in a time when film festivals are becoming less and less relevant as a way to get your work out to the public. In some cases it's a prestige thing....fine. But in many cases it's a poor usage of funds. Why spend $50/entry plus S&H, and other costs to enter festivals where your film is likely only going to be seen by a handful of people? I was shocked when I attended a festival here in L.A. where my short had gotten in, and realized that the ONLY people in attendance were the filmmakers of the respective short films shown.

10 years ago - Karel Bata

Anyway, in praise of portals: yes, they are convenient, and how else would you hear of many fests? Though you have to do your homework about which is worth sending a film to.

The alternative is what I've been going through this morning. One fest wants an online form completing and everything FTP'd to them - easy enough, but it all takes time. The other wants a .docx downloading, which no-one's bothering updating since 2013, filling in then emailing back along with download links.

Portals are so much easier.

10 years ago - John Lubran

I've come to believe that there's not more than about a dozen festivals worldwide that a prize nomination from would provide any real gravitas, or who are really able to promote a film in a worthwhile way.

Although those lessor festivals have enabled many an otherwise banal or uninteresting film to become an "Award Winning" or "nominated" master piece, adorned by Romanesque laurel leaf motifs on the publicity material, any other benefits are usually moot. Consequently the terms 'award winning' or 'nominated' are becoming increasingly devalued.

Many festivals are primarily self serving commercial enterprises or devices primarily created for the promotion of other entities, such as towns and regions, rather than of the films they exploit. The first warning sign would be disproportionate fees and strident offers of further fee paying "services".

10 years ago - Karel Bata

Hey guys - why are you making films? Is it a career building exercise, or do you want to connect with audiences?

Most of these small fests are, like their audiences, folks who LOVE films. Yes, it's great if they give your career a boost, but I love the fact that there's an audience in some far flung part of the world enjoying my work.

What I don't like is needlessly paying through the nose to do this, and (much worse!) seeing Amazon doing to film festivals what they've done to bookshops. Have they no soul..?

Agree with Chris: 'festival submission through a portal isn't lazy - it's efficient' Without portals I wouldn't know many of these festivals even existed.

And which are the best? Hm. Tough one... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Best+short+film+festivals

10 years ago - Lynwood Shiva Sawyer

Always remember, film festivals don't make their money on the winners, they make their money off the losers.

If someone has ever heard of a festival outside of the biggies (We had 90,000 submissions and only 100 were accepted! We're more exclusive than Harvard!) that posts the number of submissions vs the number of films actually screened, please let me know.

What would be a good percentage of submissions vs. acceptance? 100% is obviously a scam. 90,000 to 100 = why bother?

Thoughts.

10 years ago - Howard Lukk

My producing partner and I are new to the festival circuit and learn something new every day. It has been quite frustrating as we have discovered sometimes this seems like just a scam to get money out of film makers. We have found festivals that have taken our money and never even watched our online screener. On top of that we never recieved a rejection notice. One of these was a top Oscar qualifer festival. Now this is not all festivals. We have had some good experanices but I would love it if someone would set up a "black list" so that we could advoid these festivals that are just interested in taking our cash with no real intent of ever looking at or screening our film. I thought of starting a doc about this but fear I would be blacklisted.

10 years ago - Karel Bata

Remember the fest that wanted me to download, fill in, and return a .docx that said 2013 up top? They've just got in touch to ask me to do it again with a form that is identical but says 2015...

10 years ago - Daniel Cormack

This is old news. WAB must surely be on their way out - any festival which chooses them over other platforms must be certifiable. Even people who were supportive complain about their clunky interface.

It's a shame in a way. They set up an innovative tool which was useful to filmmakers, but more recently it seems to have just become a cash-cow for Amazon.

I saw a talk by one of the co-founders at Edinburgh 2005 and he seemed like a genuinely nice guy who was full of ideas about how to move forward and make it better. I can only assume that his perspective was changed after the sale and that squeezing money out of the idea while they can has been prioritized over making it a long term business that deals with the needs of their customers; both festivals and filmmakers.

10 years ago - Chris Bogle

I wouldn't call film makers lazy for using platforms. Most are time poor and anything that helps navigate the multitude of festivals out there is a bonus. Up until recently WAB has been the only contender really but it's on its way out - it's an awful platform. They've just released HD screeners but eben then the interface is terrible, It's one remaining - and tenuous - pull is it's connection to imdb.