Like anyone besides some code junkies here and young soul rebels will give much of a shit about your explanation - they'll just read it and think 'Hmm, he says he spent $x thousand making the film but he doesn't want to spend a grand or two on licensing for release? Whatever, more like he can't get a distributor to take it'. I accept the copy protection and so on is intolerable to you. It's totally your right to avoid patronising or promoting a distribution medium you dislike and the administration of which offends you. And I respect too your right to post about it online, although I don't think your 'fuck blu-ray' approach is going to convince people of anything more than the intensity of your feeling.
Look at it from the customer's point of view. They really don't care about you or your worldview in 99% of cases. To paraphrase Dov Simens, nobody says 'let's go see a Sony movie tonight, or would you prefer a Paramount film?'. People care about the distribution company even les than they care about the studio, which to say hardly at all. From a distributor's point of view the licensing requirements and costs to release on blu-ray are trivial operating costs, just like there has always been a fee to use the DVD logo on DVD cases and small fees for use of the MPEG codecs, h.264 codecs etc. OK, so the fee is more expensive with blu-ray. You object, I see your point - it doesn't make economic sense if you expect to sell under 3-5000 copies.
I know, you hate distributors. They take a chunk of your money and have overly cosy relationships with theaters and video rental businesses, and this is one reason among many that you market directly. On the other hand, distributors have the funds and expertise to advertise and otherwise promote a film to increase its chances of commercial success, and thus increase your future possibilities for obtaining production financing and having more negotiation power the next time you are looking at a distribution deal.
It seems to me that people who might be interested in your film won't be very exercised about the format (not least because 99% of text adventures employed graphics well below the resolution of DVD anyway), and the people who are merely curious rather than enthusiastic about IF etc. are going to read 1 paragraph of your rant and decide you're a computer geek with a chip on his shoulder.
Most indies will treat these expenses as just another line item. $3000 to buy a lifetime blu-ray reproduction license? OK, I've been on no-budget projects that racked up similar amounts of money just on beta duplication fees for an eventual release to DVD because the distributor didn't have a digital pipeline. Me, I'd rather pay it and have some chance of getting a review by submitting copies of the movie to every little film magazine/website in hopes that they'd work the 'anyone can release to blu-ray now' angle and promote the damn film...which might even get a wider audience for your (valid) thoughts about the licensing costs involved if you mentioned to an interviewer how filmmakers should be prepared for some sticker shock and it's holding them back.
tl;dr valid perspective, but ultimately you're choosing to limit your own distribution.
Eddy, I respect your position and the work you've done, but we're in two different worlds here.
For one thing, I just don't see distributors as a necessary evil to large-scale success and I certainly don't think they are necessarily more capable of promotion and advertising around properties than a particularly-driven filmmaker/producer in the modern era. I don't think this has been the case for some time, and certainly not in the five+ years you've been doing your pro work.
And for the kind of people I am talking about, yes, 5000 copies or less is the goal, and $3000 is terrible, terrible money to lose. That's the "indies" I mean, not the "indies" I read about in Entertainment Weekly or on the Sundance weblog.
BBS Documentary got reviews in Wired, Film Threat, and a pile of other locations without paying for a distributor or out to other such organizations. As a result, I sell a bunch less, but all the non-production costs go to me, not to someone who gave me a nice dinner four years ago.
I'm going to give you a pass for indicating IF enthusiasts would tolerate a standard definition film because they once or currently liked games with scant graphics.
Like I said, different worlds, and in my world I really do think Blu-ray is a cancer and that this sort of treatment needs to be pointed out.
It's too bad you're in Texas and hard to visit. I am much closer to your world than you suspect and yes, $3000 is a horrendous amount of money for an individual at the bottom of the film food chain to lose to an avoidable expense. I absolutely appreciate the financial pain involved for a niche product which will struggle to break even. Believe me, if I was earning enough to just shrug about such a sum I would write you a check to help.
When I compare that dollar amount to a line-item expense for digibeta tapes, the particular example I was thinking was for a sub-$50k DVD-bargain-bin film, which basically didn't (and won't) make a penny for most of the people involved...but the release of which by [Well Known Company] has been enough to get the maker into a project with a proper budget: in other words, it looks as if someone else will pick up the tab for the next one, and he'll earn a respectable paycheck at least, which is a step forward in my book.
What I'm trying to say comes down to two issues: first, would you rather bank half the proceeds from selling 5000 copies or bank 10% of the proceeds from selling 50,000? and second, will your approach help you sell more or fewer copies - that is, are you fighting a useful battle?
Let's say that between the licensing and other factors it would cost $4000 to be able to sell GET LAMP on Blu-ray. OK, that's the suck. But at $45, which is what you sell the BBS film for, that would start to be profitable after 100 extra copies. So when the question is 'Could you sell more than 100 extra copies by putting it onto a single BR disc'? If the answer is yes, which I think it might be, then there would be benefits in doing so.
As I said, I am completely with you about the (lack of) ethics of this licensing scheme and the resulting financial headache it creates as you try to please both your potential customers and your bank manger. But I feel that merely shaking your fist at it may not be the best strategy.
If this were a game, and in a maze of twisty passages, all alike you met a gnome who was offering you a magic key but demanding an excessive amount of your gold, possibly even more than you have... would you assume it was a red herring and just forget about it, or at least entertain the possibility that paying off the gnome would turn out to be worth it later?
I'd very much like to continue this conversation by email and/or telephone. I can't help with money but perhaps I can assist you with some aspect of production or post.
I would DEFINITELY go for the half of the 5000 over the 10% of the 50,000, if it cut out distributors and middlemen overselling and mismarketing the film to the wrong people. I've never had a return. Never. And I've not been defrauded for a sale or had a chargeback. Not once. It's been good.
I completely mixed you up mentally with someone in Austin I was talking to earlier today :-) I can't really make out your perspective that distributors and middle people are the enemy. I've never held it against someone if I watched their film and wasn't into it.
Look at it from the customer's point of view. They really don't care about you or your worldview in 99% of cases. To paraphrase Dov Simens, nobody says 'let's go see a Sony movie tonight, or would you prefer a Paramount film?'. People care about the distribution company even les than they care about the studio, which to say hardly at all. From a distributor's point of view the licensing requirements and costs to release on blu-ray are trivial operating costs, just like there has always been a fee to use the DVD logo on DVD cases and small fees for use of the MPEG codecs, h.264 codecs etc. OK, so the fee is more expensive with blu-ray. You object, I see your point - it doesn't make economic sense if you expect to sell under 3-5000 copies.
I know, you hate distributors. They take a chunk of your money and have overly cosy relationships with theaters and video rental businesses, and this is one reason among many that you market directly. On the other hand, distributors have the funds and expertise to advertise and otherwise promote a film to increase its chances of commercial success, and thus increase your future possibilities for obtaining production financing and having more negotiation power the next time you are looking at a distribution deal.
It seems to me that people who might be interested in your film won't be very exercised about the format (not least because 99% of text adventures employed graphics well below the resolution of DVD anyway), and the people who are merely curious rather than enthusiastic about IF etc. are going to read 1 paragraph of your rant and decide you're a computer geek with a chip on his shoulder.
Most indies will treat these expenses as just another line item. $3000 to buy a lifetime blu-ray reproduction license? OK, I've been on no-budget projects that racked up similar amounts of money just on beta duplication fees for an eventual release to DVD because the distributor didn't have a digital pipeline. Me, I'd rather pay it and have some chance of getting a review by submitting copies of the movie to every little film magazine/website in hopes that they'd work the 'anyone can release to blu-ray now' angle and promote the damn film...which might even get a wider audience for your (valid) thoughts about the licensing costs involved if you mentioned to an interviewer how filmmakers should be prepared for some sticker shock and it's holding them back.
tl;dr valid perspective, but ultimately you're choosing to limit your own distribution.