I am doing this film as an indie film, instead of a studio film. To people who don't work in movies, the difference between an independent movie and a studio movie isn't always clear. I want to clear that up, because in this case, it is the crucial distinction that is going to make so many elements of my movie different from other movies.
What is an indie film?
When most people hear "indie film" they think about some obscure, weird, art house flick that no one but film students and hipsters care about. And most indie films are like that. As a general rule, those sorts of films have to be done indie because they have no commercial appeal and thus no major studio wants to deal with them, because they only care about profit, not art. My movie is not going to be like that. This is a broad comedy built on a popular existing property with huge commercial potential (the exact type of script that studios shit themselves over). And we are going to have a wide release, on thousands of screens, with a big advertising campaign, mainstream reviews and everything else a normal movie gets. So even though this is an indie film, it will look and feel to the audience just like every other studio movie you see in theaters, but it will still be an indie.
What is the difference then? Basically, money and ownership. With a studio film, the studio buys the rights to the concept or buys the script, so they own all the underlying intellectual property. Then they do everything that you have to do to make a movie go: pick the director, actors, marketing campaign, arrange the financing, distribute it, etc. Most of the movies you see in theaters are studio movies: Godfather, Gladiator, No Country For Old Men, all studio films. Even though the director or writer or actor may be given a lot of weight in the decision making process, ultimately the executives at the corporation makes the decisions. The artist doesn't control his art; he is a slave to the decisions of the suits. On an indie film, that is not the case. I make all the decisions and I have to do all of the work that the studio would otherwise do.
Why did you do an indie film?
I have dealt with Hollywood twice already; in 2003 I sold my show to 20th Century Fox, and in 2006 when I sold my show to Comedy Central, and both times I had major problems with the creative process. Basically what happens is that the executives at the studio/network give you notes on your script. A "note" is a "suggestion" about how to change it. But it isn't a suggestion. It's a command, and they can enforce it because they own the work once you do a deal with them, and you become their employee. And the notes are almost always fucking retarded, mainly because the executives are fucking retarded. They are just suits who have played the bureaucratic office politics game better than anyone else. Why this puts them in a position to make creative decisions has never made sense to me.
I originally wanted to do a TV show, but if I want to control my art, that's not going to happen. The entertainment world is changing rapidly, but the sad fact is, for a standard TV show, you are still stuck with the entertainment company cartel as your primary means of distribution. The internet will break this monopoly someday, but not today.
But with movies, there is another way, a way that you can control the artistic vision: Independent film. It is much harder to do an independent film, and there is much much more risk for me. If I did a studio film, I could sell my script and the attached elements right now to a studio for probably a low seven figure sum, and get some decent backend participation. Plus, I wouldn't have to worry about all the numerous things I have to worry about now. I could lay all the work and responsibility off on the people at the studio. But then I don't get to make the calls. If I'm lucky, I'll get input, and that's it, and that's not good enough for me.
This is a conscious and purposeful decision on my part. After going through this twice with Hollywood, I decided to never do it again. I intend to do this my own way, true to my original vision, working with artists I respect. I weighed the costs and benefits of both paths, and have decided to go this route because, most importantly, it means that I make all the decisions, I bear the responsibility, and I can make sure it's done right. I have had every opportunity to sell both the film rights to my book, and sell the script that Nils and I wrote. I passed on all of them, because with all of them I had to give up creative control and give up the right to make the decisions.
If I fail on my merits I can live with that. But I cannot live with a failure that was hoisted on me by some asshole executive who doesn't know art from his asshole. Win or lose, succeed or fail, I want it on my shoulders.
______________
To comment on this entry or read comments of others, go here.
Some things to read about Indy versus studio films:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio
http://cjrarchives.org/tools/owners/
Digg it · del.icio.us · StumbleUpon · Fark It · Print Friendly
