It is, but you'd think film sites wouldn't have such a myopic view and would actually have SOME kind of understanding of what it takes to market and distribute a low-level/smaller indie film.

It's a bit baffling to me that most of them simply bitch and have what appears to be zero comprehension level.

I mean, the Oscar films have been limited release for some time, before the economic downturn.

I mean, do you really think the studios are trying to HIDE films from audiences?

They want to make their investment back to you know.

Sure, they must botch it occasionally because all business aren't perfect, but it's easy to be a cinephile and lament the fact that Moon didn't get very wide, but when you get the #s back you realize, "hey, it was in 25 markets and Wyoming just didn't give a fuck."

That's the dose of reality most arm chair critics don't see or realize.

It's tough as a movie fan when enjoying all the movies you can, especially those without explosions, increasingly means waiting for Blockbuster to get the dvd. But even dvds seem like they aren't secure revenue streams for studios (independent or major).

Here's the real answer if you don't want to read the whole piece: there's just not as big an audience out there to support a wide release as you think.

You have to take off your cinephile hat and view from the perspective of a business and they're highly more aware and attuned to how much $$$ they can take in for something than the average joe or even average film blog reader who goes, "Meh, more people should see this film! It has gigantic appeal."

Uhh, actually it doesn't and dumb and dumber wins at the box-office each weekend generally prove this (yes, there are happy exceptions like District 9, which appeals to the niche and the broad, but generally G.I. Joe is what the country really wants pretty much all the time).

We're speaking to a big indie studio soon so hopefully we can educate a little more, because it gets to be a bit tiring to here /Films of the world talking about Moon or whatever film not breaking big (and many blogs simply parroting the same sentiment with zero understand of niche film markets, appeal, tracking, etc.)

Meanwhile, you know Post Grad or soemthing small from Fox Searchlight (their favorite studio in the entire wide world) doesn't do gangbusters and they don't give a shit because nothing blows up in the picture.

The double standard irks me, at least, personally.

As for the release of independent films, I can understand where your argument and the studio are coming from. It make perfect sense for me that the money, and audience, just isn't there for quick and likely reckless (even if not that large) expansion. It just seemed like this one could have broken through quicker and moreso than other independent films.

That education piece would really be nice. Some details or a breakdown of just where short term (Box office) and long term earnings (dvds, tv, etc.) from a film come from, and how these deals are broken down.

Two foreign made action/thrillers for wide audiences made for little that go on to relevant success. Compared to some of the bloated budgets of Hollywood produced films.
While The Hurt Locker probably never had the legs for this kind of box office, it sucks not to see it reach $30 million or so in ticket sales.

One had huge awareness, no matter how shitty it was roasted by critics and no matter how bad word of mouth was.

Wolverine is a huge film that obviously many in America went to see. The Hurt Locker is still a tiny film and moreover a NICHE film that even if broadly marketed wouldn't have connected with nearly as many people.

Not sure why this isn't obvious. To cinephiles it's a great picture. To the rest of America, it's still probably just an Iraq War film.

"A slow to very slow expansion of a film doesn't help potential audiences either when in Week 3 or 4 of a release they see it'll take another few weeks to reach their city."

You'll have to talk to every indie studio in the U.S. who thinks the exact opposite and stand behind a slow build release plan to build word of mouth.

I really can't wait for our education piece to hit cause a lot of people don't seem to understand indie film marketing or understand that there's just not as big an audience out there as you think.

We compare it to Che and Wolverine, which are likely at two ends of the spectrum in terms of domestic audiences. Another fair comparison is "Taken" (with Liam Neeson). A pirated version was "Everywhere" online in the Fall of 2008 (because it had already been released in Europe for some time I think and was maybe nearing a dvd release) and the film opened in domestic theatres in January 2009 on its way to $145 million domestic. Yes, it did open wide and was backed by a studio with cash, but the word of mouth for this film was pretty good too (though not critically loved).

The Piracy hurt, I'm sure, but after Twilight they should have taken a little bit more risk to push The Hurt Locker through. Right now, it seems like it's looking more like the past Iraq films or "another Iraq film audiences CAN'T see" (whether they want to or not, just like the past ones).

The Hurt Locker needed an opening weekend in a crowded summer with a theater count in the hundreds in order to sustain. Adding tens of theaters, or even merely 100, per weekend, won't keep your movie afloat if it really does have "hit" potential (which is another argument- did Hurt Locker have "hit" potential? I vote yes)

The first weekend buzz was very very strong. You don't capitalize on that with a two theater release, you drop it in at least 100 and expand from that point on. If you're Lorna's Silence, you're content with five extra theaters a week. Summit's coming off Twilight and Knowing. What a terrible fucking summer.

then you're basically calling all limited releases stupid because most of them start out in NY/LA and roll out from there.

There's a reason for that. There's not the money or market to put it out nationally in thousands of theaters.

We're actually talking to a studio rep soon and doing an education piece soon, cause publications generally malign indie releases because they don't understand the marketing roll-out for smaller films.

We do agree that Wolverine = 12 abortions though, so there's that.

I know Soderbergh complained about the leak, and I think he was justified, because he was discussing Latin America countries that don't necessarily receive many movies, and would go piracy-nuts over one that was so aimed at them. But "The Hurt Locker" was a semi-wide American release that was poorly marketed and shut out of most markets in the first place. Opening in only two theaters at the start and expanding from there was already a dumb move regardless of expansion, and pointing to piracy is only covering the asses of the studio's release people who don't know what they're doing.

Plus, viewing the workprint and the final version of Wolverine only cemented what I think most people knew- there was little to no difference between each version. Both sucked an incredible amount of shit in similar ways.

I don't condone piracy, but I am FIRMLY not on the piracy-kills-the-industry train.

Shave $10-15 million off Wolverine and it doesn't make a huge difference. Shave even half of that from an indie film and you're in major trouble.

Plus a unfinished workprint of Wolverine leaked, The Hurt Locker, Che, et all, leaked in full. There's no mystery when it hits theaters as to how the special effects are going to turn out.

People pirated Wolverine and got the word out that it was one of the worst things EVER and it still made a pretty fucking HUGE score. For me, that's the only argument I need that piracy doesn't affect anything.

The Hurt Locker is unfortunately one of the most pirated films of 2009 and has been online since Feb, so my guess is it sadly won't expand much further.

Pirating apparently hurt "Che" pretty badly too according to various Soderbergh interviews (I think that's what part of made him sound so disillusioned a few weeks back).

And good point about Tyler Perry and, I guess, Judd Apatow by proxy. Those guys don't really stretch themselves too much, however, so you could really look at their movies as being part of their own distinct genre brand. I think you could slap Spielberg, Jackson, Scorsese or James Cameron's name on ANYTHING and it would sell tickets. Tarantino may be in that league too- "Inglorious Basterds" looks like a real test of his "brand."