Director Sam Bozzo On BitTorrent and the Movie Industry

Written by enigmax on June 13, 2010 

Last month an early cut of the unreleased movie Hackers Wanted found its way to BitTorrent. As the director’s cut of the movie also leaked out last night, TorrentFreak caught up with director Sam Bozzo who through the prism of 15 years in movie making gives his opinion on how leaks, BitTorrent and file-sharing affects the industry.

As described by director Sam Bozzo, the movie ‘Hackers Wanted’ explores the differences between true hackers and today’s “computer criminals” and follows the lives of hackers who found themselves arrested after pointing out security holes in computer systems.

Although the movie was completed, internal conflict with its producer meant that it was unlikely to see a release, officially at least. Last month we were able to report that the Internet had pushed those conflicts aside and the movie had leaked and become available worldwide through BitTorrent. It seems that the version was only a rough cut though.

“I am sad that my cut was never officially released,” explains Bozzo. “It would be hypocritical of me to complain of this internet leak, since I openly spoke on TorrentFreak in favor of such leaks for my new film Blue Gold, but on the other hand, I am sad that the leaked cut is not my Director’s Cut, but a very old cut!”

Yesterday, Sam’s disappointments were overcome. Pirate Bay releaser ‘room101bellboy‘ told us the he was about to release the Director’s Cut after being offered it by an unnamed source. TorrentFreak contacted Sam and informed him of the new leak and followed up an earlier request for a first hand opinion on how BitTorrent is affecting the movie industry. Here is his response in full.

Hackers Wanted Director Sam Bozzo On BitTorrent and the Movie Industry

I have never uploaded or downloaded any torrent, so it is strange for me to be in a position where both of my independent feature documentaries have been so positively effected by torrents, both in very different ways. One was an already released film, the other an unreleased film.

TorrentFreak asked that I consider my fifteen years navigating the film industry as a struggling filmmaker and these torrent experiences to write up an opinion of how file-sharing will affect the film industry, in hopes that my opinions may benefit both the torrent and film communities.

In a nutshell, I believe the only films that are hurt by torrent sharing are mediocre and bad films. In contrast, the good films of any genre only benefit from file-sharing. Due to this, I feel the current file-sharing trend is a catalyst for a true evolution in filmmaking and attempt to explain my theory in this article.

Readers of TorrentFreak may remember when my already released documentary “Blue Gold: World Water Wars” was leaked. Initially I reacted as most independent film producers do, enraged and terrified I would never make my money back from my film due to this ‘breach’. Thankfully, I have some very good hacker friends who talked me into viewing the situation in a positive light, which I did.

I contacted the uploader of my film and asked she spread a message of support with the torrent, asking for donations if a viewer likes the film and explaining that was a self-financed endeavor. The result? I received many donations and emails of support from those who downloaded the film, but I furthermore believe that viewers spread the word of the film to their non-torrent-downloading friends and that DVD sales increased due to the leak. For me, the torrent leak was ultimately “free advertising”, and I am the only truly independent documentary filmmaker I know making his money back this year.

With “Blue Gold” already available on DVD in North America, UK, Japan, and Australia, the initial fear of a filmmaker is that each person who downloads a torrent would have instead paid to buy or rent a DVD if the torrent were not available. I feel this is false for many reasons. For an independent film like mine, most torrent users would have never heard of my film if not for the torrent. Unlike a large blockbuster film, I had no advertising money to spread the word of the film, so the torrent leak provided another outlet to hopefully create a viral campaign of word-of-mouth. The main point, though, is that this only worked because the film is a solid good film (for the target market at least), so word of mouth could only help the film.

But what about major films which have millions of dollars of advertising costs to recoup? Blockbusters which have already been released and are public-knowledge due to their market exposure?

In this case, I feel it is important to compare file sharing not with DVD-purchases or rental, but with streaming a film via Netflix’s Watch Instantly and also with inviting friends over to watch a film in a group. In neither of these situations does a film make any money. Most are surprised to learn that Netflix pays only a fixed fee to the distributor for the number of years they may offer a film, regardless of whether that film is streamed once or a million times in that time period.

Yet anyone I know on Netflix’s Watch Instantly platform, including me, is thrilled to be there. Why? The exposure. The more people who see the film, the more will likely love it and want to buy it for their collection. When you invite a group of friends to your house to watch a DVD, do you charge them? One person bought one DVD, and ten watch it free, but if the film is good, hopefully a few of them will buy a DVD for themselves, or at least spread positive word.

Torrents should be viewed the same. But why aren’t they? The difference is the quality of the film being produced. Because I believe in the product I create, I want as many people exposed to it as possible, for free if needed, as I believe my films will create fans and grow a wider audience. I’ve had college students change their majors to environmental studies because of seeing “Blue Gold”, and an activist with terminal cancer using his last months of life organizing hundreds of free worldwide screenings. Why would I want to hide a film that creates such a reaction in an audience? How would that benefit me?

Good filmmakers are not afraid to have their films seen, they fight to have them seen. They pay thousands of dollars for the ‘honor’ of screening them for free at film festivals, so why not embrace screening them for free online with no ’submission fee’ required?

How, then, do ‘bad’ films become hurt by torrents? I believe it is because of the timing.

Whereas Netflix Watch Instantly will only be available ‘after’ the theatrical release and DVD sales, torrent leaks make the film available for mass online blogging reviews and word-of-mouth ‘before’ the film is for sale to a paying audience.

Why is that a problem? If it is a good film, I don’t think it is. It only spreads a pre-marketing buzz for the upcoming official release.

But distributors of bad and mediocre films depend solely on a paying audience’s misconception that they are paying to watch a good film, when they are not. Via mass marketing, trailers, posters, and paying high fees to star actors, distributors of bad films are betting all their money on one thing; getting as many people to pay to see the film the opening weekend in a theater before that disgruntled, unsatisfied audience tells all of their friends to avoid their bad film.

If you think logically just a second, it’s ridiculous to judge a film’s quality at all from the opening weekend, because nobody has seen the film yet to judge it! The opening weekend only demonstrates how much money was spent on advertising and the stars. That’s it. Yet you will notice all of the industry reviews and charts of the ’success’ of a film looks primarily at the opening weekend versus the long-term results. Why is the system set up like this?

I and many other film fans feel the quality of storytelling in films has deteriorated at an alarming rate since the 1970-mid 1980s. Of course there are rare gems each year we all look forward to re-watching, but in general the quality of film product being produced is mediocre at best. Why? I remember Kathleen Kennedy, a great producer, visiting my film school Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, and explaining that a film’s ’success’ was judged during the 1970-mid 1980s by the long term box-office, not the opening weekend. About week five, after the audience has had a chance to discuss the film, positively or negatively with their friends, did a film audience attendance peak.

Why did the shift occur? One reason is certainly that as distributors were willing to put more money into pre-advertising, usually to at least match the budget of the film itself, then theater owners were somewhat safer booking those films, even if they were bad, so they could make a lot of money on opening weekend, drop the film after people realized they were robbed, and replace it with a new bad film that has had an insane amount of money put behind it. This could conceivably make the theater owner more money than waiting four weeks to see which films were going to live and which were not. This became especially true as less and less great films were being made. So it is a chicken and egg problem. Regardless, why are bad films made?

Again it’s completely subjective what has happened since the 1970-1980s period of filmmaking in America. Personally I believe film used to be considered a director’s medium and now it is considered a Producer’s medium. How?

A great Producer is priceless and I only hope to work with more, having worked with Si Litvinoff and Mark Achbar already. But increasingly the credit “Producer” has become a bargaining chip that any executive who recommends a script to another demands they receive, so you end up with fifteen “Producers” on a film who did no real Producing (To Produce is a verb, remember). So we end up with real Producers as angry with this problem as Directors.

There was a great Producer’s Guild of America campaign where George Lucas made a PR poster saying “Even in Science Fiction, the Fiction ends when the credits role” or something like that. Any person can claim to be a producer. An ex-military Wall Street broker can wake up and claim to be a “Producer”. No questions asked. So these type of people do not want to hire good filmmakers. I know of so many such “Producers” who will not hire a Writer/ Director because they want to control the film even though they don’t have the creativity or talent to. They would rather hire six Writers and two Directors to maintain the drivers seat. The result? Bad to mediocre films. Sound familiar?

Regardless of ‘why’ films have deteriorated, I believe nobody goes into a film wanting to make a bad or medicore film. These self-declared “Producers” feel they have enough talent to juggle mutliple filmmakers and make it work, but then don’t. I also believe that subconsciously they and their distributors know their film is not great. This is why they are willing to spend $20 million on a star actor and hundreds of millions on advertising. It’s a panic move. They want to try to appear to make money even if ultimately the film loses money. How? By throwing insane amounts of money towards the opening weekend.

Enter a torrent leak. You can see how a bad Producer would panic. They fear that the torrent community will reveal their scam by letting consumers know they will be wasting their money on trash.

I have never self-produced a short film or documentary that has not won international awards and had a strong audience. Huge audience? No, but always devoted. And being a true filmmaker who produces, writes, directs, and edits his film, let me say for the record that no film should ever cost more than $2 million, and that only if people are well paid. With such a budget, a film can and should make its money back and torrents can only help spread the word to make that happen.

It’s when people spend hundreds of millions on one film that it becomes an impossible model, similar to the real estate bubble that recently burst. With everything focused on the opening weekend, it is difficult to really calculate how many of these ‘blockbusters’ actually ever net a real profit after advertising, film prints, and star salaries are factored in.

Torrents threaten to pop that bubble. I, for one, am glad. Why? Because I am bitter towards people who make large budget films? Yes and no. I feel a studio would make more money and safer money by taking $300 million they spend on one film and making 150 independent films and betting that half of those pay for the rest and make profits above the $300 million invested. If that were the model, we’d have more filmmakers, more films, and torrents and Netflix Watch Instantly would be no threat to anyone. It would be, as I said, free marketing.

My second and most recent film that leaked was another issue. It was an unreleased film called “Hacker’s Wanted”, which I did not produce but wrote, directed, and edited. The potential here is almost more rewarding for a filmmaker, to simply have his work seen at all.

I had the honor of meeting my film hero Terry Gilliam on set of “Brothers Grimm” (Matt Damon introduced me as I was a Top 10 Project Greenlight Director). “Brazil” is one of my favorite films, and any who are fans know of the infamous “Battle for Brazil” where the studio simply did not understand the film and wanted to recut it and make a dark surreal comedy-tragedy into a light romantic-comedy. The fight was epic and basically “Brazil” sat on a shelf for years. Gilliam eventually had to take out a full page Variety ad saying “When will you release my film Brazil, Mr. (Producer)”, enter his cut into Los Angeles Film Critics Association where it won Best Picture, and even arrange a private USC screening where the studio sent police to try and get the film print from him.

What if this all happened with the internet out there? With torrent users? I think what just happened with “Hackers Wanted” is a very small humble example of how much easier it would have been for Gilliam to have his film seen. And if he were lucky like me, he wouldn’t even have to leak it! I have no clue who leaked my documentary, a frustrated hacker fan or disgruntled ex-employee of the producer. Who cares. It lives somewhere now. And people can talk. They can blog. They can discuss. They can give life to what was lifeless. If the producers release another cut, great! There is already word-of-mouth leading up to it. Free advertising. How can that be ‘wrong’ in any way?

Ultimately, I believe there is no choice. I believe that given the ease of Netflix and others being streamed to TVs and the impossibility of stopping torrents, the evolution from billion dollar all-or-nothing gambles to greater quantity, lower budget films will happen. Torrents are, if I had to pitch it, “Darwin meets Hollywood” and frankly Hollywood needs an Evolution!

Previously:

Next:

Share

79 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)

1 Jun 13, 2010 at 18:31 by Trombone.

A lot of well thought out,positive points.

2 Jun 13, 2010 at 18:31 by Torin050

“Darwin meets Hollwood”

Hollywood mate. :P Simple mistake. And that was a GREAT statement, this guy has my full support as a film maker.

3 Jun 13, 2010 at 18:44 by P-Diddy

http://bitsnoop.com/hackers-wanted-2008-q11018949.html

original version

4 Jun 13, 2010 at 18:46 by Solitaire

Basically Sam Bozzo is talking about “Ethical Pirates”

Ethical Pirates are the ones who pirate most of the media they consume, but they also pay good money for things they like AFTER they have seen, or listened to it, for free.

This directs funds more towards independent film / music makers rather than to the lumbering Big Movie houses (which seem to produce media aimed at “The lowest common denominator”)

There’s been a few movies which I’ve enjoyed and went out of my way to buy after d/l’ing them. (notably “INK” and “MirrorMask”) Both at the time were not on general release in the UK. So I had to buy them from a US distributer. Which is a pain since “MirrorMask” was a UK film with a rather impressive UK cast list!

As more Independent movie and music creators realize that P2P is the new form of “Loss-leading”, where they may “loose” by getting it leaked, but in the long run they will have more people viewing their product and so more people will be willing to donate or buy it afterwards.

5 Jun 13, 2010 at 18:47 by Hoboapple

Read the whole thing. This is the greatest Torrentfreak article.

6 Jun 13, 2010 at 18:48 by gumbi

awesome reasoning there and i agree with everything said

7 Jun 13, 2010 at 19:04 by Kirkpad

Fantastic response there, I really enjoyed reading it. Seems like we need to spend less money to make more money.

8 Jun 13, 2010 at 19:14 by lol

Wow a director / movie funder who clearly knows what he is talking about. It’s people like this who deserve money.

9 Jun 13, 2010 at 19:21 by Drake3

I hope he is right about this. This is a much brighter future than some I have envisioned, so I will do what I can to help it along.

Thanks for the well thought-out statements Sam Bozzo and thanks for bringing this to me TorrentFreak.

10 Jun 13, 2010 at 19:34 by www.bitsnoop.com

We really need more reasonable people like Mr. Bozzo.

Very good article indeed, very good thought-out points, thank you TF for posting this!

11 Jun 13, 2010 at 19:39 by zapps

Great article, Sam! Some very fresh perspectives in there – a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Perhaps next you could make a doco about torrents, piratebay, mpaa, riaa, dmca, acta, the anti-piracy groups, 3-strikes, etc.

12 Jun 13, 2010 at 19:50 by Maroan

Mr. Sam Bozzo deserves a BIG bunch of flowers for this article. i will right away see his movie and make a donation…

13 Jun 13, 2010 at 19:51 by Armo

Wolverine still made a shitload of money. Not nearly as much as X2 and X3 tho

14 Jun 13, 2010 at 19:52 by StevO

I like what the guy says, but it wont change a damn thing. Money is more important to mpaa than what anyone “thinks”. They are hell bent on doing things the way they want to do them.

15 Jun 13, 2010 at 20:04 by nin ten

WOW what a great article, and a great eye opener.

Just this sentance paragraph say it all.
“Good filmmakers are not afraid to have their films seen, they fight to have them seen. They pay thousands of dollars for the ‘honor’ of screening them for free at film festivals, so why not embrace screening them for free online with no ’submission fee’ required?”

I somewhat have an uneasy feeling that this article wont stay up here long.

16 Jun 13, 2010 at 20:05 by room101bellboy

The torrent link provided by #3(P-Diddy) is wrong –that is the previously leaked documentary.

Those interested in the Director’s Cut should follow the link indicated below.

Hackers Wanted [Unreleased Director's Cut] DVDRip H264 AAC-BeLLBoY (Kingdom-Release)

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5621742/

Excellent article. Thanks Sam Bozzo and TorrentFreak.

17 Jun 13, 2010 at 20:08 by Shellfish

Fantastic read, my hat is off to you Mr. Bozzo.

18 Jun 13, 2010 at 20:14 by miden

That was an awesome article there! Great sunday read :)

19 Jun 13, 2010 at 20:35 by tman

Very insightfull man. The industry will resist change as long as possible, but like an alcoholic it will have to “hit bottom” before accepting the inevitable me thinks.

20 Jun 13, 2010 at 21:00 by Yogi

Great article.

I wonder if whatg he says is true , that “any movie can be made under a 2 million dollar budget”.

Can you make Jurrasic Park for 2 million? Back to the Future? Die Hard?

21 Jun 13, 2010 at 21:23 by ahfieah

$3o Air J0rdan sh0es,Sh0x sh0es,Gucci,1V sh0es

$33 True-Religion jeans, Ed Hardy jeans,1V,C00gi jeans,Aff1icti0n jeans

$15 Ed-Hardy ,1v ,Guc ci Bikini

$15 P0L0, Ed-Hardy, Gu cci, 1v, Lac0ste T-shirts

$25 C0ach,Gu cci,1v,Prada,Juicy,Chane1 handbag,

$10 C0ach,Ed-Hardy,1v sunglasses

$9 New Era caps.

Welcome to========olapparel.com

22 Jun 13, 2010 at 21:38 by great

finally a director that doesnt have his head up his ass.

great article TF.

23 Jun 13, 2010 at 21:53 by Whatever

@”by taking $300 million they spend on one film and making 150 independent films”

To all neominds, see, that really creates jobs for more people.

So there goes the ever present “torrent causes job losses” argument of the MAFIAA neominds here.

24 Jun 13, 2010 at 22:26 by Miz'

now that was a great article

25 Jun 13, 2010 at 22:35 by You're missing the point

That was very insightful. It is refreshing reading an article from a film maker who can see that downloading can work for film makers, if they are smart. If I download a film and like it, believe me I tell everyone and ‘word of mouth’ recommendations go a long way.

With that issue, Sam raises a good point, if a film was any good film makers would have no concerns about downloders because films will make back the production cost and all other cost they incur regardless of whether it was downloaded or not.

I am also pleased that Sam pointed out that just because someone downloads a film it doesn’t mean that the money the film makers are not receiving would have been theirs in the first place. Most downloaders would be more than happy to go to the movies and pay to see a film if they thought it was worth it but like most of the films I download, they are not worth paying for at all.

We are stuck nowadays with piss poor remakes, stupid and predicable so called ‘comedy romances’ and ‘action thrillers’ that have no good action in it and thrills no one. Some of the films we are stuck with are so poor they are not even worth downloading in the first place. Film makers, producers and actors are getting lazy and think that coming up with the kind of mediocre crap that they are now will appease us all.

I’m glad he also pointed out that only those making shit films need to worry about leaks because no one will pay for shit.

All in all, Sam Bozzo thoughts should be spread far and wide to all the big film makers and maybe they can start looking at how to utilize file sharing to their benefit instead of being ignorant and thinking that they will ever stop downloaders.

26 Jun 13, 2010 at 22:40 by ???

Adrain Lamo is a smug, hypocritical, snitching little fag. Robert Lyttle, on the other hand, is a hacker you could trust :)

27 Jun 13, 2010 at 23:12 by Me 2

Nice read, like the inside view, its the same from my consumer point, make 150 movies in stead of 1.

28 Jun 13, 2010 at 23:29 by SomeIdiot

This article was most interesting to read. I just hope other directors out there may read this article and warm to sharing Sam Bozzo’s views and opinions..

29 Jun 13, 2010 at 23:43 by godcanjudgeme

Sam you rock!

Thankyou for everything and keep up the good works.

So many positive comments!

You are the kind of filmmaker this world needs.

30 Jun 14, 2010 at 00:44 by poiosned

trullly a great view from a great man…actually an ordinary man who sees things as they are…respect

31 Jun 14, 2010 at 01:19 by Lothor The Evil

I wouldn’t be surprised if independent film makers and musicians started making more money than Hollywood in the future. They seem to be the only types that can see what the internet is capable of and how it can actually help them.

Also, even way before the internet, bad movies made little money and good movies made more money. The difference today with the internet is, good movies make even more money and bad movies make even less money. If the movie industry could learn from this, they would make more good movies. But instead they find it more profitable to make bad movies, blame file sharers, then send pay up or else letters.

What’s that old saying? You can fool all of the people some of the time, but only some of the people all of the time? Something like that. People are wising up to the movie industry’s tactics. It’s only a matter of time before they are forced to change their business model or go bankrupt.

32 Jun 14, 2010 at 01:33 by Reggit

Weel, its already been said, but ill say it again….a very enjoyable, insightful article!

Sam Bozzo, you most definately have made a new fan in me – you are one of the few voices of reason in a world that is slowly going insane!
Everything you say is so logical – its just common sense – and yet in the face of Hollywood propaganda so many people refuse to see the obvious.

Ive recomended Hackers Wanted to quite a few of my friends, and to anyone who hasnt seen it, i recomend you do to – its a wonderful indie doc ;)
I will certainly be keeping an eye out for any Sam Bozzo documentaries, and as Sam himself pointed out, i have no problem paying for what is quality entertainment. =)

33 Jun 14, 2010 at 01:37 by Anonymous

This article makes me want to watch his movie now.

If only 10% of Hollywood thought like him everyone would be better off.

34 Jun 14, 2010 at 02:14 by Doink

what a bozo

35 Jun 14, 2010 at 02:35 by exit

TorrentFreak asked I that I consider my…

typo

36 Jun 14, 2010 at 03:05 by paul

Anyone use Tv Torrents? Why is the url suddenly gone? anyone?

37 Jun 14, 2010 at 03:49 by Ad

Someone give this man more money to make more films. Bravo.

38 Jun 14, 2010 at 04:04 by Ninja

“In a nutshell, I believe the only films that are hurt by torrent sharing are mediocre and bad films.”

Nothing to add. Those same crappy producers are the ones suing ppl.

39 Jun 14, 2010 at 04:15 by Anonymous

Wow. He further proved his points by impressing me so much with his writing style I will now download and, if I like them of course, purchase his movies!

40 Jun 14, 2010 at 04:18 by tightasa

The only film which I have seen in the last 18 months and really enjoyed was….”Blue gold”Until now I didn`t know who made it.But I did go out and buy a copy for me and close friends after first downloading it.I have to say this …and I have not said it very often in my life.Mr Bozzo much respect ………”Superlative interview …Torrent freak…Keep it up please.And …Thankyou all!!!

41 Jun 14, 2010 at 05:47 by Pirate Ninja

Vote Sam Bozzo for Supreme Grand Overlord of the internets!

42 Jun 14, 2010 at 06:02 by Anonymous

Wholeheartedly agree. This is the thinking we want.

If something is good, people will buy it or donate to it for the best of their possibilities; and even provide free advertising via word of mouth and file sharing.

In the meantime, perhaps Mr Bozzo, should consider the Creative Commons license for his works, until the day copyright law is changed back where it belongs and the witch-hunt against file sharing ceases.

43 Jun 14, 2010 at 06:07 by bhuvi

Really a good director with broad mindset, believe it or not this is the way of sharing of films or any creative art and it will be so no matter how many laws and strict policies are put in place. Creators who embrace this medium will benefit.
Others who spend millions of dollars creating DRM and prevent people from spreading will only lose their money.

44 Jun 14, 2010 at 06:55 by owlvicious

@14you are a fool stevo.
@15this essay will remain in the archives im sure.
@31the big plan is, lothor, to change the way the internet functions before people catch on and independants/smalls start becoming rivals to conglom-corp
@2 i put you last because the man obviously is not in need of a grammar teacher/spell checker.

p.s. sound reasoning; one can afford to be logical and charitable when they dont have a roomful of stock holders breathing down your necks, not to mention all the underlings who want job “security”

those looking for jobs- find the market before the market finds you (and pays less).

45 Jun 14, 2010 at 07:27 by Bryan

Great article. Thank you.

46 Jun 14, 2010 at 07:50 by Sjoerd

Sam, you just might have your new subject here. :-)
Downloading and looking for a way to donate as we speak. I have no need for a physical version, happy with a copy on my hard disk and the knowledge that I can also always just download it again.
This is also the way we do it with music we like. Especially independent artists can look forward to a donation when we really like their music.

47 Jun 14, 2010 at 07:56 by Yellow Sheild

*Yawln…*

Poor poor movie industry. Oh wait.

48 Jun 14, 2010 at 08:09 by Pellervo

Day is always nice to start with some common sense and good articles. My hat is of to Mr. Bozzo and Torrentfreak once again. You have been Flattrd! (Torrentfreak, give Mr. Bozzo a firm handshake for the horrendous amount of money you made from my flattr (2e/about 4 flattrd this month)).

I shall download Hackers Wanted, and if I happen to like it (no doubt I will) I’ll donate, like I did with Blue Gold. I’ll probably also buy both of them in the near future.

Open source and filesharing principles are crawling their way into movie industry. Movies can made more or less 100% with open source tools. (and with software like Lightworks being released as open source later this year I think Open Movie industry will make it’s big break) $2 Million budget is reality for a big, good movie

Share the culture

49 Jun 14, 2010 at 08:16 by English Teacher

Wrong
“TorrentFreak asked I that I”

Right
TorrentFreak asked me that I

50 Jun 14, 2010 at 09:09 by woot

Great article torrentfreak I love those last few words.

“Hollywood needs an Evolution!”

51 Jun 14, 2010 at 09:50 by Whatever

Never looked at the number of producers before but checked a movie (1st one found)now.

Result:
(2 firm names presenting movie)
2 producers
3 coproducers
4 executive? producers

How many producers does a movie need ? What are ‘executive’ producers ?

Sam Bozzo is totally right after just looking at the starting credits of just 1 movie.

TF could make a contest of it, something like find the movie with the most producers and win a “i found the most producers and all i got was this T-shirt”.

52 Jun 14, 2010 at 13:13 by Meep Meep

As long as there are people thinking like you, Sam, i have faith in humane mankind, cause sometimes you loose faith with pigs like the big bosses in Hollywood who refuse to use their brains.

Just like the lawyers that are following the scam of The Hurt Locker and trying to rip the people.

In ancient history the overal sense was that 25 percent of the people are going nuts. Well that number has changed dramatically these days.

Anyway good luck and i will help spread “the message” …

53 Jun 14, 2010 at 13:33 by Roger Mexico

Here’s the future, right now.

Thank God for the internets. People can become active ‘consumers’ (hate the word), rather than endlessly sitting with dribble pooling on their slack-jawed lips, letting TV execs/ Hollywood dictate what they watch.

Try to stop us, antediluvian bean-counters.

54 Jun 14, 2010 at 13:40 by Anonymous

In a nutshell, I believe the only films that are hurt by torrent sharing are mediocre and bad films. In contrast, the good films of any genre only benefit from file-sharing.

+1

55 Jun 14, 2010 at 15:06 by Finally

Best piece of reporting torrentfreak has done in a while. There was simply facts, unbiased and unchanged.

Thank you!

Cheers to Sam Bozzo!

56 Jun 14, 2010 at 15:28 by Borderliner

“TF could make a contest of it, something like find the movie with the most producers and win a “i found the most producers and all i got was this T-shirt”.

No contest there. I seriossly don´t remember the name, but it is (or is going to be? I´m unsure if they´ve actually completed it by now) an independant short flick. They financed themselves by including *everyone* who donated as a producer. In the end the movie itself is something like 5 minutes long, and is then followed by 90 minutes of credits (which, among other things, list the producers). They were the reason IMDb set limits to the number of producers who are displayed on their site ;)

57 Jun 14, 2010 at 16:07 by Trelew

A wonderful article, and having worked in the filming industry, I can see his points quite well. The sad fact is that Big Business connected to the Entertainment and Copyright industries have way too much control of governments and their courts. With this kind of power, they will never change their corrupt and greedy ways. And the problem will continue. Any evolution (or revolution) put forward by Mr. Bozzo, will be killed by the corporate elite in the industry.

58 Jun 14, 2010 at 19:05 by danyo

awesome article.

59 Jun 14, 2010 at 19:11 by X

+1 to Mr.Bozzo

60 Jun 14, 2010 at 19:42 by AllYouDoIsTalk

I want to hear more from this guy. I also need to see his films asap.

61 Jun 14, 2010 at 20:12 by Luka

Great Articel!
Mr. Bozzo, you are a wise man.
[quote]Why is the system set up like this?[/quote]
Hollywood has never been what many people think it should have or should be. It is the big missunderstanding between Hollywood and Independent Filmmakers and even the movie fans themselves:
From the very beginning the idea was, to make as much money as possible. Give people some BumBum and Buhu and they will pay gladly for it. Good movies only came to be, when clever charismatic writers and/or directors took their chance influencing the right people.
Hollywood is a very complex money-making machinery. And between all the big productions now and then a smaller one finds its way through: those are mostly the ones more creative and less overdone. But they are litarely made from the breadcrumbs the big ones leave behind. The challange, if one goes to Hollywood, is finding a way to play this system in one’s favour and not being destroyed afterwards.
And as 57(Trelew) says, it will stay like this, because the “fungus” Hollywood has spread too far to be stopped. And the people in charge sadly will do ANYTHING to keep it that way.

But nevertheless I agree that ultimatly when ANYTHING has proven not to work out for them, there will be at least some evolution. Maybe they´ll start walking upright and use language…

62 Jun 14, 2010 at 20:17 by in.cog.nito

I have not seen either of his movies, but never the less, will be donating to this producer.

Thank you for taking the time to understand new technologies, and look at it in a non-obtrusive way.

Best of luck with your further film making adventures.

63 Jun 14, 2010 at 21:27 by Carus

epic movie, i would definitely purchase it to support this director and the views expressed in this movie

64 Jun 14, 2010 at 21:38 by Terminator

WoW. Period.

Now that’s an article worth reading. Keep up the good work TF.

65 Jun 14, 2010 at 22:42 by okihadto

Ok, I had to …

Lamo & Bozo sorry you know someone was going too!

still dl’ing it :)

66 Jun 15, 2010 at 02:06 by great

incredible piece of text, thanks!

67 Jun 15, 2010 at 02:47 by Simplex

Great read, thanks. :) Proceeding to download Bozzo’s work, and shall be sharing with friends and donating if i like what i see… [hey, another one that would never have heard of you without the internet].

68 Jun 15, 2010 at 03:04 by Sam Bozzo

I am really overwhelmed with this positive support. I was so happy to have a place to voice an opinion and when Torrent Freak was kind enough to let me know that my Director’s Cut was about to be leaked, I had to quickly write this article, and actually wrote it on my laptop while going through a car wash. They kindly edited all my mistakes that night, but perhaps the quick stream of consciousness writing worked. Again, I’m very grateful for all these proactive responses and just overwhelmed! Thanks! P.S. If you want to see my other films you can go to http://www.purpleturtlefilms.com and http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com
Cheers!

69 Jun 15, 2010 at 03:09 by AllYouDoIsTalk

Is there a place to donate that goes strait to him?

70 Jun 15, 2010 at 03:15 by AllYouDoIsTalk

Nvm I see it on the bluegold website.

71 Jun 15, 2010 at 03:53 by Use Your Brain?

Great article, very insightfull!

72 Jun 15, 2010 at 03:56 by William

Brilliant article.

73 Jun 15, 2010 at 05:35 by Soundwave

Sam, I saw your film, Blue Gold: World Water Wars after hearing of it here, I believe.

I recommended dozens of my friends to see it, calling it “important”.

I almost couldn’t read your story here because I already knew all of these things. But since I like things that agree with my views, I read it anyway. I especially like your “Darwin meets Hollywood” evolutionary decree.

74 Jun 15, 2010 at 07:01 by Nikolai

Great read many good points. Interesting to get an insiders perspective on why Hollywood puts so many bad films out now. He certainly gives support to the idea that their (Hollywood’s) films are mass-produced in a factory-like model to a pre-defined recipe, and that is exactly why we aren’t going to pay to see them.

75 Jun 15, 2010 at 07:39 by Perryl

I’d love to see Mr. Bozzo make a documentary about pirating, I would purchase it as well, after downloading it of course :p

76 Jun 15, 2010 at 08:40 by lverona

“Yet anyone I know on Netflix’s Watch Instantly platform, including me, is thrilled to be there. Why? The exposure. The more people who see the film, the more will likely love it and want to buy it for their collection. When you invite a group of friends to your house to watch a DVD, do you charge them? One person bought one DVD, and ten watch it free, but if the film is good, hopefully a few of them will buy a DVD for themselves, or at least spread positive word.”

I still think this is missing the point. I thought people make films to share something important, not to happily see their DVDs sold. And while I do believe he meant it, I think we should speak about it more.

In the end, films, music and movies are not about sales at all. Yes, sales or any other form of fund raising is needed, just like we need food, but people are not about food, are they?

I sometimes think “producers” live in another world. While they count DVD sales and donations, we, poor mortals, spend the best time of our lives working on things that really matter and an amateur, laughed at by big studios, captures the minds of people with message that comes from his heart and passes it on to people for generations.

77 Jun 15, 2010 at 14:21 by phishybongwaters

I’m totally going to buy that water wars movie. Directors like this are what’s RIGHT with film making, and highlight exactly what is wrong with the industry today.

78 Jun 15, 2010 at 21:00 by Annie Moose

Three cheers for Sam Bozzo. He’s hit the nail on the head. Torrenting only hurts films that are bad. Obviously, we’d all rather see a movie in theaters than in a blurry, noisy cam version. So I’m pretty sure that all of us who are able would be perfectly willing to pay to see something GOOD. But of course we’re not going to see something BAD in theaters, because if it isn’t a good film in poor quality, it isn’t a good film in good quality either. And that scares the living daylights out of film companies, because now to make money, they have to make good films.

79 Jun 16, 2010 at 03:18 by Mike

A bit of a tangent, but you mention mediocre movies will suffer if everything was free. If webcomics are any indication, this unfortunately isn’t true. Mediocre or crappy media (Ctrl+Alt+Del, Dominic Deegan, MegaTokyo, etc)are profitable because the creators haave an existing fanbase. I imagine movies will operate in an analogous fashion. Spielberg movies will be a hit no matter what, but when everything is free, the superior indie movies will have no advantage and will get even less attention.

Add your response

Please be advised we will not tolerate off topic posts, spam, trolls or personal attacks. Please help us to help you by NOT responding to such posts. ALL posts which fall into this category will be removed, including those responding to such posts.