Kevin Smith's upcoming film: RED STATE

[DjfunkmasterG]

Blimey, can't be arsed to read all that, hehe... It's a shame that the flick didn't find distribution at the fest - or yet anyway, or seemingly will ever, what with this "SModpictures" idea - sometimes I wonder if the Red State of the Union podcasts have been building things up too much, but who knows ... it's certainly an interesting approach to making and releasing a film. I wonder what will happen for international territories though - such as, *ahem*, the UK. Anyone know what the response to the film has so far been at Sundance? As an indie filmmaker you should read it Nick. One thing about being a filmmaker... any article relating to indie film should get an auto-read just on GP alone. I don't agree with Smith's publicity stunt, nor do I agree with what the other ass hat said when taking the otherside of the coin. Simple fact is Kevin Smith has way more avenues to release than say someone who is just starting out. What he is doing i sno different than what any filmmaker would do, it is because he is Kevin Smith he can book all those pre-date and probably get a 1000 screen theatrical in October. However, he is just doing a larger scaled version of what I and many others have done... Take your film to a cinema, promote it on no money, charge a bit over normal ticket price, and come home with some coin in your pocket. Kevin seems to forget he is Kevin Smith... When watching his 25+ minute long You Tube vid from Sundance I was screaming at him to get on with what he was trying to do already. He just talks and talks, then finally jumps into the Major math business discussion... I don't give a fuck about Wayne Gretsky or the other BS, this is Sundance not An Evening With Kevin Smith... If he didn't have the following he had I could almost guarantee you he would have sold to the first jag-off from a studio who coughed up $1,000,000 with Back End promises to recoup the remaining $3,000,000.00 Make no mistake this is more about Kevin than it is making a statement about indie marketing.

[MinionZombie]

From the ten or so reviews I've seen, it's luke warm at best. And that's being generous, unfortunately. I don't think I've seen it higher than a 5/10. Edit - just found a better review at the Hollywood reporter. It's the nicest i've seen so far... That's disappointing ... again I wonder if all the podcasting about it has stoked it up in some people's minds to be: 1) Something more than it is. 2) Something entirely different than it is. There's a lot of misreporting about what kind of movie it is, so it seems - everybody seemed to latch onto "oh it's about shafting the Phelps family and conservative America", whereas Smith has always protested that it isn't ... so I wonder if that's a factor too. Hmmm... Indeed, Dj says it well, Smith has the benefit of a dedicated following - but the Average Joe indie filmmaker sat at home doesn't have that. They don't have more than 15 years in the business, they don't have 8 movies under their belts, they haven't worked with a bit studio, they don't have a comfortable lifestyle, or a podcasting network - so if Smith hasn't recognised that one major difference between him going independently with the flick, and the average joe filmmaker out there desperately trying to get somewhere, then that's a disappointing oversight. I do wonder if he's gotten a smidge carried away ... I'm still rather looking forward to seeing Red State, and I wonder if the bum reviews from some reviewers have been because of the movie, or because they've been expecting something else entirely. *ponders* *edit* A blog from Smith himself about the whole thing in general: http://silentbobspeaks.com/?p=409 Reading more about the "auction" aspect of it, it seems that portion was a big of a scheme in a way, a bit of a trick, in that they always knew they were going to tour it during March (hence the March date in the trailer - ahead of an actual release target of October 2011) ... Smith bought the rights for $20 apparently, so it seems that that portion of proceedings was a bit of a ruse - perhaps to gain attention. Also, perhaps it suggests that this "SModpictures" thingy will go on to help indie folks themselves - to use this attempted model (which, in Smith's terms, is essentially doing what used to be done - touring a movie around the country like they did back in the day) as a way to help release indie films from other filmmakers: For years, bloggers told me I was tired for doing so many Askewniverse flicks. You hear that enough, it sinks in. No artist wants to be called tired, y’know? So with only one flick left that I want to make, I figure why not gamble a bit. Because, like I said: if this works out the way we’re hoping, we’ll have a model we can use with not only Hit Somebody, but any SModcast Pictures we make after it - which would be your flicks, not mine. I’ve told my stories in film already and I get to tell way more inventive stories every week on all the SModcast Network shows. But I love being involved with flicks, so I figure “Why not help other cats get their flicks out there?” If we can build SModcast Pictures into a brand - the way Harvey & Bob made the Miramax name stand for a specific kind of film - then it can become a kind of no-budget service label for flicks we feel fit our ethos or can’t find love elsewhere in the world. Indie flicks need special handling, and what we’re doing with Red State is simply special-handling it ourselves. It seems to me like the message around Red State has been a bit confused - people talking about the flick on blogs and in print/visual media have grabbed onto the Phelps angle and "attack on conservative America" angle, when Smith himself has said that's not the purpose - but, to be honest, he somewhat allowed that misconception to get out there in the first place ... but then again, it's all free publicity, and you've got to be a canny operator to get word out there. However the other side is that could lead people to expect one thing and receive another - perhaps this, partly anyway, explains some of the bum reviews. But then again there have been other reviews that have been glowing - as highlighted on NewsAskew.com (although it'd be good to see them addressing the negative reaction too - I'd prefer they tackle any negative reviews head-on on the site, to be honest). So anyway - I'm all for Smith trying to break the current model and try something different - but he must recognise that this can only happen because he's got an established following, and communicate the intentions of this movement more clearly (and reporters must likewise follow suit and report things clearly and factually) ... but it seems that the final intent is for "SModpictures" to help indie filmmaking in the end, which is a good thing.

[LouCipherr]

First off: 90% of the stories you're reading out there have nothing to do with the movie itself, rather than everyone's opinions on what Smith is doing and their reaction to his speech at Sundance. I think out of all the articles I've read (and it's been MANY) there has only been 2 or 3 of them that actually touch on the movie itself. The rest is people bitching about either A) what he said at the festival, or B) the model he's trying to work within to recoup the $ for the film. One of the many things that annoys me is this: I've seen so many people bitch that "oh, HE can do it because he has a massive, loyal fanbase that he built up with his last 9 movies, but the average joe could never pull something like this off" - really? Ok, lets get realistic here: Someone, any of you: go to Google and search Dj's name. His full name. What do you see? I see 13,200 results from just his name. You can go to page 54 and even on that very last page, there he is - and there is mentions of Deadlands and Deadlands 2. So, Dj hasn't exactly had the kind of success that Smith has, nor does he have anywhere near as many fans as Smith, but to say that "Smith can do it, but others who are on the bottom of the stack can't" - well, I present to you 13,200 results that prove that whole theory bullshit. Gary has: * Recopued the costs of his productions (exactly what Smith is trying to accomplish with the "Red State Tour" * Has released BOTH of his film, through a distributor, and sales have been enough to consider both films a success * Released both movies on DVD * Released both movies on Blu-Ray * Released DL2 on a DEAD FORMAT - HD-DVD and STILL sold ALL 500 discs that were printed! Remember, this was no hollywood movie, this was a sub-$10k flick * Has had multiple theatrical runs with both films. It might've been local theaters within the tri-state area, but he got it on the screens (and sometimes a week-long engagement too), didn't he? So, it CAN be done, albeit it on a smaller scale. It takes a serious work ethic, and someone willing to BUST THEIR ASS to promote their film, but it sure as shit can be done on even the level that Dj is at. Remember, he was just a dude you guys knew here as "dj" - not a filmmaker until he decided to give it a try. How about giving the dude a round of applause for at least trying something a bit different (although not unique, this has been done before) - regardless of how arrogant he may seem? How about giving the dude some kudos for railing against the stupid, archeaic model that only survives on BUYING their way to the #1 spot in the weekend box office? He may be an arrogant prick, but I like the idea. This is an idea/model (on a much smaller scale) that filmmakers like Dj and others have been trying to push through forever. So, my question is to these people: what's the problem? Dj - you said you took a bit of issue with some of the things he said at Sundance to the industry people - what he said is exactly what you and almost every other indie filmmaker thinks, but never gets to opportunity to say to the people in the industry that should hear it. Also, you say that it's "more about Kevin than it is making a statement about indie marketing" - really? Let's end with this little thought: Clerks cost $25,575 to produce. It took SEVEN YEARS before any "profit" was made on this movie. Why do you think that is?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Dj - you said you took a bit of issue with some of the things he said at Sundance to the industry people - what he said is exactly what you and almost every other indie filmmaker thinks, but never gets to opportunity to say to the people in the industry that should hear it. He made a few incorrect statements and a few slaps. Bagging on Bob and Harvey was where I felt he crossed the line a bit. Bob and Harvey gave him his career. Although he did praise them for teaching him things, he also more or less lumped them when he talked about the industry model in general Also, you say that it's "more about Kevin than it is making a statement about indie marketing" - really? Let's end with this little thought: Clerks cost $25,575 to produce. It took SEVEN YEARS before any "profit" was made on this movie. Why do you think that is? Bad negotiating skills. In all honesty, I am sure the math is probably the main cause... but I don't buy 7 years. Sorry, just don't buy it. The film actually turned profit when he sold it to Miramax for $150,000.00 Miramax pumped a tonn of money into it, thus raising their cost not Kevin's. So the studio probably took 7 years recouping their investment (Purchase cost, adverts etc) Kevin recoup'd the day he signed a deal to sell the movie. He is slightly misrepresenting himself with Clerks.

[LouCipherr]

He made a few incorrect statements and a few slaps. Bagging on Bob and Harvey was where I felt he crossed the line a bit. Bob and Harvey gave him his career. Although he did praise them for teaching him things, he also more or less lumped them when he talked about the industry model in general Bagged on Bob & Harvey? He did nothing but praise them. For the love of all that is holy, he called his production company "THE HARVEY BOYS" Bad negotiating skills. har har har Miramax pumped a tonn of money into it, thus raising their cost not Kevin's. So the studio probably took 7 years recouping their investment (Purchase cost, adverts etc) Kevin recoup'd the day he signed a deal to sell the movie. Of course they did, but he wasn't saying HE didn't get the profit for seven years - read his quote: "It took CLERKS, a movie that cost $25,575, seven years to make a profit" - no where in there does he say "I didn't recieve any profit for seven years" That's his whole point about misinterpretation in the media, dude!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Bagged on Bob & Harvey? He did nothing but praise them. For the love of all that is holy, he called his production company "THE HARVEY BOYS" har har har Of course they did, but he wasn't saying HE didn't get the profit for seven years - read his quote: "It took CLERKS, a movie that cost $25,575, seven years to make a profit" - no where in there does he say "I didn't recieve any profit for seven years" That's his whole point about misinterpretation in the media, dude! Harvey Boys is because Bob and Harvey Weinstein secretly put up the $4,000,000.00

[MinionZombie]

Didn't Miramax buy Clerks for $227,000? I remember them saying that in the "Snowball Effect" documentary on the Clerks X release ... it was gonna be $200,000, but then they agreed to factor in the budget of the flick itself, thus taking it to $227,000 (or $227,500, or whatever ... I seem to remember it cost $27k, not $25k). I think Smith could do with sharpening his message a bit - there's clearly an ease with which to misinterpret him, or confuse an issue, or a factoid, or whatever - so he could use a bit of streamlining for the argument, however boiled down to the essential: "We're old school touring the country with Red State, like a traditional Smith Q&A (but with added Red State, and Michael Parks) at traditional Smith Q&A cost, and aim to recoup the just-shy-of-$4m budget before the October 2011 theatrical release, then seek to help indie filmmakers get their flicks made and/or distributed (not entirely sure if he's aiming to fund or just distribute, or both) with SModcast Pictures" Then that's a good thing and I'm all in favour of it. A doff of the cap to those who've done the same thing already on a smaller scale would be cool though.

[bassman]

"We're old school touring the country with Red State, like a traditional Smith Q&A (but with added Red State, and Michael Parks) at traditional Smith Q&A cost, and aim to recoup the just-shy-of-$4m budget before the October 2011 theatrical release, then seek to help indie filmmakers get their flicks made and/or distributed (not entirely sure if he's aiming to fund or just distribute, or both) with SModcast Pictures" That would've been the wiser thing to do, imo. Just announce something like that on his website or podcasts. Instead, he insulted and wasted everyone's time at Sundance for no apparent reason other than to be an attention whore. Bad show, Smith. Still curious about the flick. Hopefully it will be within driving distance when it's released...

[LouCipherr]

Harvey Boys is because Bob and Harvey Weinstein secretly put up the $4,000,000.00 Y'know Dj, I think you're 100% correct. I don't have any evidence to support it, but it makes perfect sense. I bet this comes out eventually, and you called it. Also, when you said that he bagged on Harvey & Bob, I don't think they thought he was. Taken from www.silentbobspeaks.com: "The highlight of my night last night was talking to Bob Weinstein at the party after the screening. As @TheJonGordon and I explained our plan, Bob said… “You’re four-walling. That’s what me and Harvey did in the beginning.” To which I said “That’s why we call it The Harvey Boys.” Then, in true Bob fashion, he instantly did the math on our Radio City Music Hall premiere to tell us we could have the highest per screen average ever (Bob saw the flick this morning and we spoke again. He loved it; said really nice things about me as a director. Then, in true Bob fashion, he added “If it were mine, I’d tell you take 10 minutes out.”). It was awesome. It was like being recognized as an adult by your Dad. " MZ - I think you're right too, he needs to start "clarifying" things. I know he's messing with the media, saying shit like "I'm going to pick the distributor right there in the room, auction style, after the screening" - which was NOT a lie, but, it was also done with sneaky intentions to fuck with them. He knew DAMN WELL the media would pick that up and say "He's going to sell the movie to a distributor right after the screening via auction" - but that's not what he said. He said he would "pick his distributor" and that it would be done "auction-style" - and that's exactly what he did. Personally, i think it's hilaroius these schmucks fell for it. Anyone who listens to his podcasts, reads his posts and/or tweets, or even knows who this guy is and how he conducts himself saw something like this coming from miles away. Publicity whoring at it's finest.