Amazon Studios

http://studios.amazon.com/

47 17 15 years ago

studios.amazon.com

Could this be considered a "seed-stage film fund?"

dbfclark• 15 years ago

My answer would be "no," since rather than buying just a small piece of your movie idea, Amazon studios options the entire thing immediately. Their arrangement is "if we decide we want to make your movie, we will pay you $200k and that's all."

In some sense $200k is actually quite a lot for a no-name script, but since Amazon gets all the equity I don't think we can call it a seed fund. This may be how the movie industry works (all the upside for a new writer is in reputation), but since you don't get to make the movie and earn the profit it doesn't seem comparable.

kenjackson• 15 years ago

But do you get to keep your name on the script? There was that other project for writers where apparently they could (and did) remove your name from the list of authors. So you didn't even build a reputation.

As you say, $200k for a no-name script is actually not bad. And if it has some decent success (gets made into a movie at all), that byline probably has some value.

neuroelectronic• 15 years ago

More like a "seed-stage screenplay fund"

6ren• 15 years ago

Will today's cheaper, more accessible technology for making movies end up disrupting the big studios?

It does bring movie-creation within reach of a great many more people; and disruptive distribution channels are also growing (amazon; netflix; even appleTV/iTunes; plus the growing "home theater"), as alternatives to movie theaters.

The question is consumers: they have access to movies made with the highest level of technical expertise, screenplays, character actors, stars, franchises, marketing - and movies are cheap to rent already (plus, piracy drops their price to zero). Why would consumers select one of these indie movies over the major studio movies? In a head-on comparison for the mainstream, these indie movies would seem to have everything stacked against them.

But indie movies aren't new, and there has always been a niche for them - just not the mainstream. What is changing is their quality is increasing. What they really need is slightly bigger niches, where their non-big-studio qualities offset their not having all those other advantages. Do these bigger-niches exist?

I'm not sure that they do. Even foreign language fims - made to very high standards, with huge niches - are regularly remade by hollywood, and with much greater commercial success in the mainstream. When people pirate movies, they seem to pirate mainstream movies, not indie ones...

Here's what I think will happen: as soon as any film-maker gets a foothold of some success, he will be co-opted by the big studios - as they have done with the idea of an indie film (notice how "indie" films often have big name actors in them these days?) They are still masters of the value networks for making mainstream movies: theaters, stars, marketing.

Technology isn't the main commercial barrier to making movies, so reducing it doesn't undermine their business.

What could change it is:

(1) if there were customers who prefer the indie films, because they are more accessible or cheaper. But everyone can access films, and privacy makes them free - denying indie entry.

(2) or if, even without a nurturing niche, indie films could become of such high quality (according to the mainstream) that they could take business away from the big studios. This would provoke a fierce competitive response from the studios, and they have so much non-technical power that it seems unlikely.

What can happen is disruption of the traditional distribution channels of video rentals (there's bankruptcies there already I think).

But probably not theaters (people like the theater partly because it is not home - they are going out - there's the energy of a mass of people; a different environment/atmosphere etc). Maybe cheaper projection equipment will change the way it's done (e.g. there are now complexes that show many more films, in smaller theaters), and that may disrupt traditional chains to some extent, as discount stores disrupted department store. But I don't think so: theaters have always been priced so that everyone can afford them; I guess what might change is accessibility, with small theaters opening up locally. But this niche is already filled; those small theaters can just upgrade their equipment and keep making money in the same way - the cheaper technology is a sustaining innovation for them. Unless someone works out a way to use it disruptively... (maybe showing more films, more recently, at cheaper prices, by using smaller theaters).

roc• 15 years ago

I think what we'll continue to see, is the physical-distribution-based middle-men fall away. They'll be awfully nice to have for quite a while. But the production companies won't need them for very long.

I expect an increase in digital middle-men in dealmaking (ala Netflix/HOUSE OF CARDS). Followed by the digital middle-men striking exhibition deals with the theatre chains. Then it's pretty much free-fall for traditional studios unless they adjust their model.

The theatre chains actually stand to get a shot in the arm with digital and physical middle-men competing on deals in the near-term. And with digital distribution/projection bringing overhead down, they'll pick up an incredible amount of flexibility in theatre-sizing/scheduling/etc. Exhibition is poised to get pretty interesting.

And if the big chains won't do it, I'm sure the digital distributors would be keen to prop up a smaller-theatre model in the interim.

chadgeidel• 15 years ago

I don't know about your "co-opting" idea. I know next to nothing about the Hollywood system, but I imagine a "middle tier" of studios that are between "indies" and "the big guys". A studio that would do everything in-house, and tap into the emerging distribution networks (Amazon/Netflix/iTunes) for "release". Maybe even working with independent theaters.

I think the other factor here would be promotion. I don't think the distribution networks want to bother with that part, but there are probably a bunch of other players ready to get into that market. (Kevin Smith perhaps?)

whosKen2• 15 years ago

This is great! I for one have always been writing scripts as a hobby. Film-making business has always been a closed circle, even in foreign and indie markets. An additional channel into the circle for people outside of Hollywood couldn't hurt.

warrenwilkinson• 15 years ago

That's what I thought too. I stumbled across this yesterday, while searching for a market for my script.

The deal sounds great, I'm too busy to market my script properly, but I can just upload it to them, get feedback, exposure, possibly win some money, and maybe make $200,000 if they buy it.

Worst case scenario is I leave in 18 months with just my script again -- but I figure that's the expected case for self promotion anyway.

whosKen2• 15 years ago

Agree. Even though I haven't tried to publish anything in print media format, but I suspect that, at worst case scenario, this is no different from a writer submitting his work and getting turned down with some comments.

jcampbell12• 15 years ago

Can anyone explain why amazon is doing this? Of all the industries they could move into, why financing indie scripts?

burgerbrain• 15 years ago

I somehow doubt they are abstaining from moving into other industries just because they are doing so with this one. Corporations tend to be pretty decent at multitasking...

MicahNance• 15 years ago

Possibly as an avenue to creating original content for Amazon Instant Video.

draycox• 15 years ago

I am constantly amazed at just how many things Amazon is involved in. Though I do not work for them, I am pretty intimately involved with them, and have some insider knowledge, and it blows my mind how many different, random, and seemingly pointless things they work with.

I kinda have hard feeling against them because I feel like they go out of their way to stifle (external) innovation. However they certainly do their best to innovate within their own company. I literally can't think of any other company that throws their money around on experiments to such a degree as Amazon.

As for this project, It is an unique idea, and all it really takes is on home run for the world to take notice, and for them to disrupt the current system. Unfortunately I believe it is the writers' that are the most taken advantage of in Hollywood, and it doesn't seem like this does anything to remedy that. I think it would be better if they gave them $100k on the front end, and 10% on the back end. That way they still get the guaranteed money for their work, but they are compensated if it is a home run hit. That is a better deal than a lot of studios give writers, and so it would actually attract high quality scripts.

jawngee2• 15 years ago

cough http://massify.com/ cough

jcampbell12• 15 years ago

Massify is a "connect, collaborate, create" place, and amazon is running contests for funding. It seems completely different to me.

jawngee2• 15 years ago

Massify is mostly competitions.

Amazon Studios

Related Stories