phil hawkins at http://philmmaker.tumblr.com/post/12063 ... ix-minutes wrote:THE BUTTERFLY TATTOO was independently financed and for those investors they expect a return on their money. Weâ€™ve been lucky for a low-budget British indie flick to have a limited theatrical release in the US (followed by the DVD) and weâ€™ve also sold the film to various countries in the middle east and Europe but we havenâ€™t recouped the budget yet. I also donâ€™t think the average joe downloader understands what independent film is (and if they do they should already realise the damage!) Iâ€™m not suggesting for a second that there is an argument in downloading studio vs indy films but from my point of view for every download my own wallet (and the wallets and purses of the rest of the production cast, crew and investors) is damaged. The film, afterall, was based on a profit share. If nobody is buying it, nobody is getting paid a penny. Itâ€™s that simple.
Bizarrely, there are some positives from my point of view. I was actually quite surprised how many people knew about the movie and downloaded it. After all, we are a little indie film which has only had a small release in the US. How do the tens of thousands of people know it exists? Apart from the website, a few Pullman fan sites and the trailer on YouTube there hasnâ€™t been much publicity. Since the downloading frenzy has begun, loads of reviews have appears, message boards have lit up and our IMDb page has gone up 10,393% in popularity. This sudden burst of interest has meant our relatively unknown film has been thrown into the spotlight and is now no. 75 on IMDbâ€™s top 100 films (weâ€™re above Wall:E!) and - on one website - weâ€™re in the top 50 of the most downloaded things at the moment. If the success of a film is mainly word of mouth, weâ€™ve certainly got it now.
THE BUTTERFLY TATTOO was always a platform for everyone involved. It was a great showcase for me but especially for the actors - it was both Jessica Blake and Duncan Stuartâ€™s first major film roles. With distributors - especially in the UK - not wanting to take a chance with a film full of â€œunknownsâ€ and a general release highly unlikely for an independent suddenly the film has reached an massive audience, albeit an illegal one. Iâ€™ve always said to the nervous theatrical distributors that the film definitely has an audience - the surge in popularity is a testament to that fact.
So where does that leave us? Will the popularity hurt anymore theatrical or distribution prospects or can this seen as proof that the public want to see it and like it?
any thoughts? (i've set the poll to allow voters to check all that apply, because i suspect that maybe how sraffies work)